Previous studies have suggested that patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in rural areas may have worse outcomes due to limited availability of specialists, fewer resources, and less institutional funding. Data were collected from hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease Program (GWTG-CAD) from January 2000 to December 2008. In-hospital outcomes and quality of care were stratified by care at rural versus urban hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association of rural locale with in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and compliance with the GWTG-CAD performance measurements including (1) early aspirin use, (2) smoking cessation counseling and discharge prescriptions of (3) aspirin, (4) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin receptor blockers for left ventricular systolic dysfunction, (5) β-blockers, and (6) lipid-lowering therapy and a composite of all 6 measurements. Data were collected from 22,096 patients at 71 rural centers and 329,938 patients at 477 urban centers. Unadjusted rates of compliance with performance measurements were lower in rural (range 82.4% to 90.5%) compared to urban (range 81.3% to 95.0%) hospitals including the composite (74.7% vs 80.6%, p <0.0001). In multivariate analysis, rural status was not independently associated with lower compliance with any of the performance measurements. Unadjusted mortality rates were higher in rural versus urban hospitals (5.7% vs 4.4%, p <0.0001), but this was not significant in multivariate analysis (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.26). In conclusion, within the GWTG-CAD quality improvement initiative, patients with CAD treated at rural hospitals receive similar quality of care and have similar outcomes as those at urban centers.
Based on 2000 US census data, 6.4% of the US population resides in rural areas within towns of <10,000 residents and another 10.1% live in areas of 10,000 to 50,000 residents. Previous studies have shown that this rural population is more vulnerable than its urban counterparts in that they are older, less educated, more likely to be unemployed, and more susceptible to economic downturn. Moreover, delivery of medical care to rural populations can be challenging because there are fewer hospitals, providers, and specialists and greater distances between individual residences and hospitals. Given this background, the present study sought to determine the characteristics, treatments, quality of care, and in-hospital outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) treated in rural versus urban hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease Program (GWTG-CAD). We hypothesized that known differences in care by geography may be minimized or eliminated within this national quality improvement system.
Methods
The GWTG-CAD is a national, ongoing, prospective observational data collection and quality improvement initiative overseen by the American Heart Association. Details of this program have been described elsewhere. Hospitals participating in this registry include institutions from all regions of the United States and represent community hospitals and tertiary referral centers. Trained individuals at each site submitted clinical information regarding medical history, hospital care, and outcomes for consecutive patients hospitalized for CAD-related diagnoses using an online, interactive patient management tool (Outcome Sciences, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts). Variables entered included demographic and clinical characteristics, medical history, contraindications to evidence-based therapies, quality and performance measurements, and in-hospital outcomes.
All participating institutions were required to comply with local regulatory and privacy guidelines and to submit the GWTG-CAD protocol for review and approval by their institutional review boards. Because data were used primarily at each local site for quality improvement, sites were granted a waiver of informed consent under the common rule. Outcome Sciences, Inc., served as the clinical coordinating center for GWTG.
This study includes patients enrolled from 548 hospitals participating in the GWTG-CAD program who were hospitalized with confirmed clinical diagnoses of CAD—including patients with acute coronary syndromes, those with stable CAD hospitalized for revascularization, and those with documented CAD hospitalized for reasons other than heart failure. Case finding was based on clinical identification of patients with CAD diagnoses or Joint Commission International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision , identification of CAD diagnoses with clinical verification for data abstraction.
The analysis cohort included patients reported in the GWTG-CAD database from January 2, 2000, to December 30, 2008, who were >18 years old. The data elements collected had written definitions and were gathered using common specifications for all participants. Using the Internet-based system, data quality was monitored and reports were generated to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the submitted data.
Patients were categorized as receiving treatment in hospitals located in rural or urban areas. A rural hospital was defined by location outside a core-based statistical area (CBSA), and an urban hospital was located within a CBSA. CBSAs are identified by having ≥1 urbanized area with a population of ≥10,000 residents. CBSAs were derived from the 2000 US census data and cross-referenced with the participating hospitals’ postal codes.
Demographics, clinical characteristics, and hospital characteristics were stratified by whether the patient was treated at a rural versus urban center. Quality of care, rates of revascularization in eligible patients, in-hospital mortality, and length of stay were then assessed. Quality-of-care assessments examined hospital compliance with several evidence-based performance measurements and were analyzed only for eligible patients in whom no therapeutic contraindication was identified. The GWTG-CAD performance measurements have been previously described and included (1) aspirin therapy within 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), (2) use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, (3) aspirin therapy at discharge, (4) β blocker therapy at discharge, (5) smoking cessation counseling for eligible patients, and (6) lipid-lowering therapy for patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels >100 mg/dl. A composite performance measurement was also assessed and was defined as a defect-free measurement of all 6 GWTG-CAD performance measurements.
Assessment of 6 additional performances included (1) the proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation MI who received fibrinolytic therapy within a door-to-thrombolytics time of ≤30 minutes, (2) the proportion of patients with ST-segment elevation MI receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within a door-to-balloon time of ≤90 minutes, (3) documentation of appropriate blood pressure control (systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) at discharge, (4) patients with AMI or PCI discharged on clopidogrel, (5) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level recorded in the medical record, and (6), physical activity recommendations given to a patient or referral made for cardiac rehabilitation.
Because the GWTG-CAD database included several CAD-related diagnoses, prespecified subgroup analysis was also performed limiting the population to only those patients a diagnosis of AMI. Differences in characteristics, performance measurements, rates of revascularization, and in-hospital outcomes between patients treated at rural and urban centers within this population were analyzed in a similar fashion.
All statistical analyses were performed centrally at the Duke Clinical Research Institute (Durham, North Carolina). Data were reported as means for continuous variables and as percentages of nonmissing values for categorical variables. Univariate comparisons between patients from rural versus urban centers were performed using Pearson chi-square tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous variables.
Potential confounders that may have affected outcomes were identified in univariate analysis and included demographics (age, gender, race), insurance status, medical co-morbidities, and clinical characteristics (weight, systolic blood pressure, cardiac diagnosis). The generalized estimating equation method was applied to provide valid inference accounting for within-site correlation. Other potential confounders included specific hospital characteristics—bed size, academic versus community status, and availability of on-site PCI, cardiac surgery, and cardiac transplantation. Logistic multivariable regression models were then used to adjust for these hospital confounders in the analysis of in-hospital outcomes and quality-of-care measurements. Estimated adjusted odds ratio for death, primary and secondary performance measurements, and estimated mean ratios for length of stay were then computed. SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was used for all statistical analyses.
Results
A total of 352,034 patients were identified among 548 hospitals from January 2, 2000, to December 30, 2008. Most patients (270,847 patients, or 76.9%) were admitted with a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome defined as AMI or unstable angina. There were 71 rural centers (13.0%) accounting for 22,096 patients (6.3%) and 477 urban centers (87.0%) accounting for 329,938 patients (93.7%). As presented in Table 1 , compared to urban counterparts, rural hospitals had fewer hospital beds, were less likely to be academic/teaching centers, were less likely to have on-site interventional cardiology, cardiac surgery, and cardiac transplantation capabilities, and were less likely to perform percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for AMI.
| Variable | Rural | Urban | Univariate p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 71 centers) | (n = 477 centers) | ||
| Mean number of beds | 180 | 396 | <0.0001 |
| Interventional facilities on site | 39.9% | 73.6% | <0.0001 |
| Primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction | 65.1% | 90.2% | <0.0001 |
| Cardiac surgery on site | 45.9% | 81.9% | <0.0001 |
| Academic/teaching hospital | 11.4% | 37.3% | <0.0001 |
| Cardiac transplantation center | 0.4% | 16.3% | <0.0001 |
| Northeast region | 14.0% | 18.4% | ⁎ |
| Midwest region | 24.7% | 24.5% | ⁎ |
| South region | 39.9% | 26.7% | ⁎ |
| West region | 21.5% | 30.5% | ⁎ |
⁎ p <0.0001 for combined analysis of differences in regions between rural and urban centers.
Patients from rural centers were older, more often women, more Caucasian, and were more likely to have Medicare insurance, whereas urban patients were more likely to be uninsured ( Table 2 ). Atrial fibrillation and heart failure were more prevalent at rural hospitals. Clinical laboratory data and admission diagnoses were similar between patients from rural and urban hospitals.
| Variable | Rural | Urban | Univariate p Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 22,096 patients) | (n = 329,938 patients) | ||
| Age (years) | 67.4 | 66.3 | <0.0001 |
| Men | 56.9% | 57.9% | <0.0001 |
| Caucasian race | 77.0% | 65.6% | <0.0001 |
| Medicare | 47.9% | 34.2% | <0.0001 |
| Medicaid | 7.5% | 5.8% | <0.0001 |
| Other insurance | 40.7% | 37.3% | <0.0001 |
| No insurance | 5.3% | 6.9% | <0.0001 |
| Atrial fibrillation | 10.3% | 7.9% | <0.0001 |
| Previous myocardial infarction | 23.0% | 21.7% | <0.0001 |
| Heart failure | 15.9% | 14.2% | <0.0001 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 11.0% | 10.2% | 0.4517 |
| Hypertension ⁎ | 68.5% | 70.1% | 0.0795 |
| Hyperlipidemia ⁎ | 39.2% | 46.6% | <0.0001 |
| Chronic kidney disease | 8.8% | 9.1% | 0.1662 |
| Chronic pulmonary disease | 15.3% | 13.5% | <0.0001 |
| Peripheral vascular disease | 8.4% | 9.0% | 0.0029 |
| Cerebrovascular disease | 8.3% | 8.2% | 0.7399 |
| Depression | 2.4% | 2.0% | 0.0007 |
| Cigarette smoker | 28.0% | 27.6% | 0.0238 |
| Weight (kg) | 81.8 | 83.1 | <0.0001 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 141.2 | 136.9 | <0.0001 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg) | 78.2 | 76.0 | <0.0001 |
| Total serum cholesterol (mg/dl) | 171.4 | 171.5 | 0.9178 |
| Low-density lipoprotein (mg/dl) | 101.4 | 102.6 | 0.0071 |
| Hemoglobin Alc | 7.6% | 7.8% | 0.0770 |
| Ejection fraction | 49.5% | 48.4% | <0.0001 |
| ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction | 8.5% | 9.7% | <0.0001 |
| Non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction | 19.9% | 21.6% | <0.0001 |
| Acute myocardial infarction—unspecified | 35.0% | 40.2% | <0.0001 |
| Unstable angina pectoris | 8.3% | 5.8% | <0.0001 |
| Coronary artery disease † | 11.1% | 13.7% | <0.0001 |
⁎ Defined as a previous medical diagnosis as documented at the time of chart abstraction.
† Patients with documented coronary artery disease hospitalized for reasons other than acute coronary syndromes and heart failure.
The comparison of GWTG-CAD performance measurements by rural and urban locations is presented in Table 3 . Patients at rural centers had lower unadjusted rates of compliance with the GWTG-CAD performance measurements of aspirin within 24 hours of AMI, aspirin therapy at discharge, β blocker at discharge, smoking cessation counseling, and lipid-lowering therapy. The overall composite measurement of compliance with all GWTG-CAD performance measurements was lower for rural centers. After adjusting for patient characteristics, rural status was associated only with lower rates of smoking cessation counseling. After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, rural status was independently associated only with higher rates of compliance with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
| Variable | Rural Centers | Urban Centers | Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted Odds Ratio for Patient Factors (95% CI) ⁎ | Adjusted Odds Ratio for Patient and Hospital Factors (95% CI) † | Multivariate p Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease Program performance measurements (percent compliance of eligible patients) | ||||||
| Aspirin within 24 hours for acute myocardial infarction | 89.6% | 92.1% | 0.62 (0.42–0.91) | 1.20 (0.67–2.14) | 1.61 (0.59–4.40) | 0.349 |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker at discharge for left ventricular systolic dysfunction | 82.4% | 81.3% | 1.02 (0.82–1.26) | 1.19 (0.97–1.45) | 1.25 (1.03–1.53) | 0.025 |
| Aspirin at discharge | 90.5% | 95.0% | 0.58 (0.45–0.75) | 0.79 (0.55–1.13) | 0.80 (0.56–1.16) | 0.242 |
| β blocker at discharge | 86.2% | 91.3% | 0.62 (0.47–0.83) | 0.88 (0.63–1.24) | 0.96 (0.69–1.33) | 0.785 |
| Smoking cessation counseling | 85.6% | 89.6% | 0.46 (0.33–0.65) | 0.61 (0.41–0.89) | 0.74 (0.53–1.03) | 0.076 |
| Lipid-lowering therapy for low-density lipoprotein >100 mg/dl | 83.4% | 86.5% | 0.60 (0.43–0.84) | 1.02 (0.73–1.42) | 1.12 (0.83–1.52) | 0.455 |
| Composite (defect free) | 74.7% | 80.6% | 0.75 (0.60–0.92) | 0.85 (0.63–1.16) | 0.84 (0.61–1.15) | 0.274 |
| Additional performance measurements (percent compliance of eligible patients) | ||||||
| Door to thrombolytics for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction ≤30 minutes | 33.2% | 33.1% | 1.23 (0.92–1.64) | 1.11 (0.81–1.51) | 1.11 (0.81–1.51) | 0.520 |
| Door to balloon for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction ≤90 minutes | 49.6% | 49.5% | 0.94 (0.66–1.33) | 0.94 (0.66–1.32) | 0.94 (0.65–1.38) | 0.763 |
| Blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg at discharge | 74.8% | 78.5% | 0.88 (0.77–1.01) | 0.98 (0.86–1.13) | 1.07 (0.93–1.24) | 0.338 |
| Acute myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention discharged on clopidogrel | 76.2% | 73.3% | 0.52 (0.34–0.78) | 1.12 (0.57–2.21) | 1.23 (0.61–2.50) | 0.563 |
| Low-density lipoprotein recorded | 59.4% | 62.9% | 0.69 (0.53–0.89) | 0.92 (0.64–1.33) | 0.96 (0.69–1.34) | 0.798 |
| Cardiac rehabilitation or physical activity recommendations | 72.5% | 64.4% | 0.93 (0.67–1.28) | 1.19 (0.61–2.32) | 1.47 (0.81–2.66) | 0.211 |
| Revascularization (percentage of eligible patients) | ||||||
| Percutaneous coronary intervention | 38.3% | 57.4% | 0.23 (0.14–0.38) | 0.54 (0.33–0.87) | 0.58 (0.36–0.94) | 0.026 |
| Coronary artery bypass grafting | 7.6% | 13.3% | 0.29 (0.14–0.58) | 0.58 (0.28–1.20) | 0.69 (0.35–1.36) | 0.287 |
| Outcomes | ||||||
| In-hospital mortality | 5.7% | 4.5% | 1.15 (0.89–1.47) | 1.11 (0.91–1.36) | 1.05 (0.87–1.26) | 0.624 |
| Hospital length of stay (days) | 4.8 | 5.3 | 0.86 (0.77–0.96) | 0.88 (0.79–0.98) | 0.90 (0.81–1.00) | 0.059 |
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
