Publications by Year: 2021

BACKGROUND: International Classification of Disease (ICD)-10 coding of type 1 myocardial infarction (MI) is used for reimbursement, value-based programs, and clinical research.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the introduction of ICD-10 codes for type 2 and types 3-5 MI was associated with changes in hospitalizations for ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI.

METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified patients with ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI between January 2016 and December 2018. Patients were stratified according to the timing of their event in relation to the introduction of the type 2 and types 3-5 MI codes on October 1, 2017.

RESULTS: There were 2,680,323 hospitalizations for ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI; after adjustment for seasonality, there was a 13.7% decline in hospitalizations after the introduction of the new subtype codes. Patients with ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI after the coding change were less likely to be female, had lower prevalence of several cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbidities, and had higher rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. After introduction of the new codes, there was a positive deflection in the slope of risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality (0.007%; P <0.001) and a negative deflection in risk-adjusted 30-day readmission (-0.002%; P = 0.05) for patients with ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI.

CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of ICD-10 codes for type 2 and types 3-5 MI was associated with a decrease in hospitalizations for ICD-10 codes now attributed to type 1 MI and changes in the observed characteristics and treatment patterns of these patients.

BACKGROUND In January 2011, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded the number of inpatient diagnosis codes from 9 to 25, which may influence comorbidity counts and risk-adjusted outcome rates for studies spanning January 2011. This study examines the association between (1) limiting versus not limiting diagnosis codes after 2011, (2) using inpatient-only versus inpatient and outpatient data, and (3) using logistic regression versus the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services risk-standardized methodology and changes in risk-adjusted outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS Using 100% Medicare inpatient and outpatient files between January 2009 and December 2013, we created 2 cohorts of fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years. The acute myocardial infarction cohort and the heart failure cohort had 578 728 and 1 595 069 hospitalizations, respectively. We calculate comorbidities using (1) inpatient-only limited diagnoses, (2) inpatient-only unlimited diagnoses, (3) inpatient and outpatient limited diagnoses, and (4) inpatient and outpatient unlimited diagnoses. Across both cohorts, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnoses and hierarchical condition categories increased after 2011. When outpatient data were included, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted readmission rates using logistic regression or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services risk standardization. A difference-in-differences analysis of risk-adjusted readmission trends before versus after 2011 found that no significant differences between limited and unlimited models for either cohort. CONCLUSIONS For studies that span 2011, researchers should consider limiting the number of inpatient diagnosis codes to 9 and/or including outpatient data to minimize the impact of the code expansion on comorbidity counts. However, the 2011 code expansion does not appear to significantly affect risk-adjusted readmission rate estimates using either logistic or risk-standardization models or when using or excluding outpatient data.

This study provides a contemporary assessment of population-level trends in percutaneous coronary intervention use among all age groups, insurance payers, and hospital settings across 4 US states.

[Figure: see text].

Background In the United States, hospitalizations for pulmonary embolism (PE) are increasing among older adults insured by Medicare. Although efforts to reduce health disparities have intensified, it remains unclear whether clinical outcomes differ between socioeconomically disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with PE. Methods and Results In this study, there were 53 386 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries age ≥65 years hospitalized for PE between October 2015 and January 2017. Of these, 5494 (10.3%) were socioeconomically disadvantaged and 47 892 (89.7%) were nondisadvantaged. Socioeconomically disadvantaged adults were of similar age as nondisadvantaged adults (77.1 versus 77.0), more likely to be female (68.5% versus 54.2%), and less likely to receive advanced therapies (11.0% versus 12.1%). After adjustment for demographics, 90-day all-cause mortality rates were similar between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged adults. In contrast, 1-year mortality rates were higher among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.22), although these differences were partially attenuated after additional adjustments for comorbidities and PE severity (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16). Risk-adjusted 30-day and 90-day all-cause readmission rates were substantially higher among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (30-day HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.22]; 90-day HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.12-1.25]). In addition, 90-day readmissions attributed to PE, deep vein thrombosis, and/or bleeding were higher among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.02-1.32). Conclusions Socioeconomically disadvantaged older adults hospitalized with PE have higher 1-year mortality rates compared with their nondisadvantaged counterparts. Nearly 1 in 3 socioeconomically disadvantaged older adults was readmitted within 90 days of a hospitalization for PE. Targeted strategies are needed to improve transitional and ambulatory care for this vulnerable population.

IMPORTANCE: Socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with poor health outcomes. However, whether socioeconomic factors are associated with post-myocardial infarction (MI) outcomes in younger patient populations is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of neighborhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage with long-term outcomes among patients who experienced an MI at a young age.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study analyzed patients in the Mass General Brigham YOUNG-MI Registry (at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts) who experienced an MI at or before 50 years of age between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2016. Each patient's home address was mapped to the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) to capture higher rates of socioeconomic disadvantage. The median follow-up duration was 11.3 years. The dates of analysis were May 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020.

EXPOSURES: Patients were assigned an ADI ranking according to their home address and then stratified into 3 groups (least disadvantaged group, middle group, and most disadvantaged group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The outcomes of interest were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Cause of death was adjudicated from national registries and electronic medical records. Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to evaluate the association of ADI with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality.

RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2097 patients, of whom 2002 (95.5%) with an ADI ranking were included (median [interquartile range] age, 45 [42-48] years; 1607 male individuals [80.3%]). Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were more likely to be Black or Hispanic, have public insurance or no insurance, and have higher rates of traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes. Among the 1964 patients who survived to hospital discharge, 74 (13.6%) in the most disadvantaged group compared with 88 (12.6%) in the middle group and 41 (5.7%) in the least disadvantaged group died. Even after adjusting for a comprehensive set of clinical covariates, higher neighborhood disadvantage was associated with a 32% higher all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60; P = .004) and a 57% higher cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.17-2.10; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study found that, among patients who experienced an MI at or before age 50 years, socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with higher all-cause and cardiovascular mortality even after adjusting for clinical comorbidities. These findings suggest that neighborhood and socioeconomic factors have an important role in long-term post-MI survival.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular deaths increased during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. However, it is unclear whether diverse racial/ethnic populations have experienced a disproportionate rise in heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths.

METHODS: We used the National Center for Health Statistics to identify heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths for non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic individuals from March to August 2020 (pandemic period), as well as for the corresponding months in 2019 (historical control). We determined the age- and sex-standardized deaths per million by race/ethnicity for each year. We then fit a modified Poisson model with robust SEs to compare change in deaths by race/ethnicity for each condition in 2020 versus 2019.

RESULTS: There were a total of 339 076 heart disease and 76 767 cerebrovascular disease deaths from March through August 2020, compared with 321 218 and 72 190 deaths during the same months in 2019. Heart disease deaths increased during the pandemic in 2020, compared with the corresponding period in 2019, for non-Hispanic White (age-sex standardized deaths per million, 1234.2 versus 1208.7; risk ratio for death [RR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.02-1.03]), non-Hispanic Black (1783.7 versus 1503.8; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.17-1.20]), non-Hispanic Asian (685.7 versus 577.4; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.15-1.22]), and Hispanic (968.5 versus 820.4; RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.16-1.20]) populations. Cerebrovascular disease deaths also increased for non-Hispanic White (268.7 versus 258.2; RR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]), non-Hispanic Black (430.7 versus 379.7; RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.10-1.17]), non-Hispanic Asian (236.5 versus 207.4; RR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.09-1.21]), and Hispanic (264.4 versus 235.9; RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.08-1.16]) populations. For both heart disease and cerebrovascular disease deaths, Black, Asian, and Hispanic populations experienced a larger relative increase in deaths than the non-Hispanic White population (interaction term, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations experienced a disproportionate rise in deaths caused by heart disease and cerebrovascular disease, suggesting that these groups have been most impacted by the indirect effects of the pandemic. Public health and policy strategies are needed to mitigate the short- and long-term adverse effects of the pandemic on the cardiovascular health of diverse populations.