Association of Neighborhood-Level Marginalization With Health Care Use and Clinical Outcomes Following Hospital Discharge in Patients Who Underwent Coronary Catheterization for Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Single-Payer Health Care System
Leo E Akioyamen,Husam Abdel-Qadir,Lu Han,Maneesh Sud,Nikhil Mistry,David A Alter,Clare L Atzema,Peter C Austin,R Sacha Bhatia,Gillian L Booth,Irfan Dhalla,Andrew C T Ha,Cynthia A Jackevicius,Moira K Kapral,Harlan M Krumholz,Douglas S Lee,Candace D McNaughton,Idan Roifman,Michael J Schull,Atul Sivaswamy,Karen Tu,Jacob A Udell,Harindra C Wijeysundera,Dennis T Ko
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.123.010063
Abstract:Background: Canadian data suggest that patients of lower socioeconomic status with acute myocardial infarction receive less beneficial therapy and have worse clinical outcomes, raising questions regarding care disparities even in universal health care systems. We assessed the contemporary association of marginalization with clinical outcomes and health services use. Methods: Using clinical and administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based study of patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for their first acute myocardial infarction between April 1, 2010 and March 1, 2019. Patients receiving cardiac catheterization and surviving 7 days postdischarge were included. Our primary exposure was neighborhood-level marginalization, a multidimensional socioeconomic status metric. Neighborhoods were categorized by quintile from Q1 (least marginalized) to Q5 (most marginalized). Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A proportional hazards regression model with a robust variance estimator was used to quantify the association of marginalization with outcomes, adjusting for risk factors, comorbidities, disease severity, and regional cardiologist supply. Results: Among 53 841 patients (median age, 75 years; 39.1% female) from 20 640 neighborhoods, crude 1- and 3-year mortality rates were 7.7% and 17.2%, respectively. Patients in Q5 had no significant difference in 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.95-1.22]), but greater mortality over 3 years (HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.22]) compared with Q1. Over 1 year, we observed differences between Q1 and Q5 in visits to primary care physicians (Q1, 96.7%; Q5, 93.7%) and cardiologists (Q1, 82.6%; Q5, 72.6%), as well as diagnostic testing. There were no differences in secondary prevention medications dispensed or medication adherence at 1 year. Conclusions: In older patients with acute myocardial infarction who survived to hospital discharge, those residing in the most marginalized neighborhoods had a greater long-term risk of mortality, less specialist care, and fewer diagnostic tests. Yet, there were no differences across socioeconomic status in prescription medication use and adherence.