Care Transitions After Acute Myocardial Infarction for Transferred-In Versus Direct-Arrival Patients
Amit N Vora1, Eric D Peterson2, Anne S Hellkamp2
1From the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC (A.N.V., E.D.P., A.S.H., L.T.); Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor (N.R.S.); Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis, Sacramento (E.P.); and Cardiovascular Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (J.A.d.L.). a.vora@duke.edu.
Background:
Many patients in the United States require transfer from one hospital to another for acute myocardial infarction (MI) care. How well these transferred-in patients are transitioned back to their local community is unknown.
Methods And Results:
We used linked Medicare claims data to examine postdischarge outcomes of 39 136 patients with acute MI aged ≥65 years discharged alive from 451 US hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines. Multivariable Cox modeling was used to compare the likelihood of outpatient clinic follow-up and risks of all-cause mortality and all-cause or cardiovascular readmission at 30 days post MI between transferred-in and direct-arrival patients. From 2007 to 2010, 14 060 of 39 136 patients (36%) required interhospital transfer for acute MI care, traveling a median of 43 miles (interquartile range, 27-68 miles; 77.6 km [interquartile range, 48.2-122.6 km]). Compared with those arriving directly, transferred-in patients with MI were slightly younger (median age, 73 versus 74; P<0.01) but less likely to have previous MI, heart failure, and previous revascularization than direct-arrival patients. Relative to direct-arrival patients, those transferred-in had a lower likelihood of outpatient follow-up within 30 days post discharge (risk-adjusted incidence, 69.9% versus 78.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.92) and higher adjusted 30-day all-cause and cardiovascular readmission risks (14.5% versus 14.0%; HRall-cause, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.15 and 9.5% versus 9.1%; HRcardiovascular, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.22). In contrast, risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was similar between transferred-in and direct arrivals (1.6% versus 1.6%; HR, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.27).
Conclusions:
Transferred-in patients with acute MI are less likely to have outpatient clinic follow-up within 30 days and more likely to be readmitted within the first 30 days post discharge compared with direct-arrival patients. These results indicate room for improvement in the safe and seamless transition of care for transferred patients with MI traveling back to their home environments.
More Related Videos
05:41Left Anterior Descending Coronary Artery Ligation for Ischemia-Reperfusion Research: Model Improvement via Technical Modifications and Quality Control
Published on: December 16, 2022
05:16Cutoff Value of Phase Angle by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis at Admission as a Prognostic Factor in Patients with Acute Heart Failure
Published on: June 10, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome II: Pathophysiology and Clinical Manifestations
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Acute Coronary Syndrome V: Nursing Management
Cardiac Catheterization IV: Nursing Management
Discharge Summary Forms
Here's a detailed look at the key components and guidelines for preparing a discharge summary:
