Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2020 Apr;95(4):660-668. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2020.01.013. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
To study the in-hospital outcomes and 30-day readmission data in homeless patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
Adult patients (>18 years of age) who were admitted with AMI between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, were identified in the National Readmission Database. Patients were classified into homeless or non-homeless. Baseline characteristics, rates of invasive assessment and revascularization, mortality, 30-day readmission rates, and reasons for readmission were compared between the 2 cohorts.
A total of 3938 of 1,100,241 (0.4%) index hospitalizations for AMI involved homeless patients. Compared with non-homeless patients, homeless patients were younger (mean age, 57±10 years vs 68±14 years; P<.001) and had a lower prevalence of atherosclerotic risk factors (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes) but a higher prevalence of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse. Homeless patients were less likely to undergo coronary angiography (38.1% vs 54%; P<.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (24.1% vs 38.7%; P<.001), or coronary artery bypass grafting (4.9% vs 6.7%; P<.001). Among patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, bare-metal stent use was higher in homeless patients (34.6% vs 12.1%; P<.001). After propensity score matching, homeless patients had similar mortality but higher rates of acute kidney injury, discharge to an intermediate care facility or against medical advice, and longer hospitalizations. Thirty-day readmission rates were significantly higher in homeless patients (22.5% vs 10%; P<.001). Homeless patients had more readmissions for psychiatric causes (18.0% vs 2.0%; P<.001).
Considerable differences in cardiovascular risk profile, in-hospital care, and rehospitalization rates were observed in the homeless compared with non-homeless cohort with AMI. Measures to remove the health care barriers and disparities are needed.
研究无家可归者因急性心肌梗死(AMI)住院的院内结局和 30 天再入院数据。
在国家再入院数据库中,确定了 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2016 年 12 月 31 日期间因 AMI 入院的成年患者(>18 岁)。将患者分为无家可归者或非无家可归者。比较两组患者的基线特征、侵入性评估和血运重建率、死亡率、30 天再入院率和再入院原因。
1100241 例 AMI 指数住院中有 3938 例(0.4%)涉及无家可归者。与非无家可归者相比,无家可归者年龄更小(平均年龄,57±10 岁 vs 68±14 岁;P<.001),且动脉粥样硬化危险因素(高血压、高血脂和糖尿病)患病率较低,但焦虑、抑郁和物质滥用患病率较高。无家可归者行冠状动脉造影(38.1% vs 54%;P<.001)、经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(24.1% vs 38.7%;P<.001)或冠状动脉旁路移植术(4.9% vs 6.7%;P<.001)的可能性较低。在接受经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的患者中,无家可归者使用裸金属支架的比例较高(34.6% vs 12.1%;P<.001)。在倾向评分匹配后,无家可归者的死亡率相似,但急性肾损伤、出院至中级护理机构或违背医嘱以及住院时间更长的发生率较高。30 天再入院率在无家可归者中显著较高(22.5% vs 10%;P<.001)。无家可归者因精神科原因再入院的比例较高(18.0% vs 2.0%;P<.001)。
与非无家可归者 AMI 患者相比,无家可归者在心血管风险状况、院内治疗和再入院率方面存在显著差异。需要采取措施消除医疗保健障碍和差距。