3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Variation and Disparities in Awareness of Myocardial Infarction Symptoms Among Adults in the United States

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What are the prevalence and characteristics of adults in the United States who remain unaware of the symptoms of and the appropriate response to a myocardial infarction?

          Findings

          In this cross-sectional study of 25 271 US adults, 5.8% were not aware of any myocardial infarction symptoms, and 4.5% chose a different response than calling emergency medical services in response to these symptoms. These numbers were substantially higher in certain sociodemographic groups.

          Meaning

          Many individuals in the United States remain unaware of the symptoms of and appropriate response to a myocardial infarction.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study evaluates the prevalence and characteristics of US adults who are unaware of the symptoms of and appropriate response to myocardial infarction.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Prompt recognition of myocardial infarction symptoms is critical for timely access to lifesaving emergency cardiac care. However, patients with myocardial infarction continue to have a delayed presentation to the hospital.

          Objective

          To understand the variation and disparities in awareness of myocardial infarction symptoms among adults in the United States.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study used data from the 2017 National Health Interview Survey among adult residents of the United States, assessing awareness of the 5 following common myocardial infarction symptoms among different sociodemographic subgroups: (1) chest pain or discomfort, (2) shortness of breath, (3) pain or discomfort in arms or shoulders, (4) feeling weak, lightheaded, or faint, and (5) jaw, neck, or back pain. The response to a perceived myocardial infarction (ie, calling emergency medical services vs other) was also assessed.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Prevalence and characteristics of individuals who were unaware of myocardial infarction symptoms and/or chose not to call emergency medical services in response to these symptoms.

          Results

          Among 25 271 individuals (13 820 women [51.6%; 95% CI, 50.8%-52.4%]; 17 910 non-Hispanic white individuals [69.9%; 95% CI, 68.2%-71.6%]; and 21 826 individuals [82.7%; 95% CI, 81.5%-83.8%] born in the United States), 23 383 (91.8%; 95% CI, 91.0%-92.6%) considered chest pain or discomfort a symptom of myocardial infarction; 22 158 (87.0%; 95% CI, 86.1%-87.8%) considered shortness of breath a symptom; 22 064 (85.7%; 95% CI, 84.8%-86.5%) considered pain or discomfort in arm a symptom; 19 760 (77.0%; 95% CI, 76.1%-77.9%) considered feeling weak, lightheaded, or faint a symptom; and 16 567 (62.6%; 95% CI, 61.6%-63.7%) considered jaw, neck, or back pain a symptom. Overall, 14 075 adults (53.0%; 95% CI, 51.9%-54.1%) were aware of all 5 symptoms, whereas 4698 (20.3%; 95% CI, 19.4%-21.3%) were not aware of the 3 most common symptoms and 1295 (5.8%; 95% CI, 5.2%-6.4%) were not aware of any symptoms. Not being aware of any symptoms was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.05-1.44; P = .01), Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.47-2.43; P < .001), not having been born in the United States (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.47-2.33; P < .001), and having a lower education level (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.58; P = .004). Among 294 non-Hispanic black or Hispanic individuals who were not born in the United States, belonged to the low-income or lowest-income subgroup, were uninsured, and had a lower education level, 61 (17.9%; 95% CI, 13.3%-23.6%) were not aware of any symptoms. This group had 6-fold higher odds of not being aware of any symptoms (OR, 6.34; 95% CI, 3.92-10.26; P < .001) compared with individuals without these characteristics. Overall, 1130 individuals (4.5%; 95% CI, 4.0%-5.0%) chose a different response than calling emergency medical services in response to a myocardial infarction.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          Many adults in the United States remain unaware of the symptoms of and appropriate response to a myocardial infarction. In this study, several sociodemographic subgroups were associated with a higher risk of not being aware. They may benefit the most from targeted public health initiatives.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fifteen-year trends in awareness of heart disease in women: results of a 2012 American Heart Association national survey.

          The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in awareness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among women between 1997 and 2012 by racial/ethnic and age groups, as well as knowledge of CVD symptoms and preventive behaviors/barriers. A study of awareness of CVD was conducted by the American Heart Association in 2012 among US women >25 years of age identified through random-digit dialing (n=1205) and Harris Poll Online (n=1227), similar to prior American Heart Association national surveys. Standardized questions on awareness were given to all women; additional questions about preventive behaviors/barriers were given online. Data were weighted, and results were compared with triennial surveys since 1997. Between 1997 and 2012, the rate of awareness of CVD as the leading cause of death nearly doubled (56% versus 30%; P<0.001). The rate of awareness among black and Hispanic women in 2012 (36% and 34%, respectively) was similar to that of white women in 1997 (33%). In 1997, women were more likely to cite cancer than CVD as the leading killer (35% versus 30%), but in 2012, the trend reversed (24% versus 56%). Awareness of atypical symptoms of CVD has improved since 1997 but remains low. The most common reasons why women took preventive action were to improve health and to feel better, not to live longer. Awareness of CVD among women has improved in the past 15 years, but a significant racial/ethnic minority gap persists. Continued effort is needed to reach at-risk populations. These data should inform public health campaigns to focus on evidenced-based strategies to prevent CVD and to help target messages that resonate and motivate women to take action.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs Regarding Cardiovascular Disease in Women

            Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number 1 killer of women in the United States, yet few younger women are aware of this fact. CVD campaigns focus little attention on physicians and their roles in assessing risk.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of a community intervention on patient delay and emergency medical service use in acute coronary heart disease: The Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) Trial.

              Delayed access to medical care in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is common and increases myocardial damage and mortality. To evaluate a community intervention to reduce patient delay from symptom onset to hospital presentation and increase emergency medical service (EMS) use. The Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment Trial, a randomized trial conducted from 1995 to 1997 in 20 US cities (10 matched pairs; population range, 55,777-238,912) in 10 states. A total of 59,944 adults aged 30 years or older presenting to hospital emergency departments (EDs) with chest pain, of whom 20,364 met the primary population criteria of suspected acute coronary heart disease on admission and were discharged with a coronary heart disease-related diagnosis. One city in each pair was randomly assigned to an 18-month intervention that targeted mass media, community organizations, and professional, public, and patient education to increase appropriate patient actions for AMI symptoms (primary population, n=10,563). The other city in each pair was randomly assigned to reference status (primary population, n=9801). Time from symptom onset to ED arrival and EMS use, compared between intervention and reference city pairs. General population surveys provided evidence of increased public awareness and knowledge of program messages. Patient delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival at baseline (median, 140 minutes) was identical in the intervention and reference communities. Delay time decreased in intervention communities by -4.7% per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.6% to -0.6%), but the change did not differ significantly from that observed in reference communities (-6. 8% per year; 95% CI, -14.5% to 1.6%; P=.54). EMS use by the primary study population increased significantly in intervention communities compared with reference communities, with a net effect of 20% (95% CI, 7%-34%; P<.005). Total numbers of ED presentations for chest pain and patients with chest pain discharged from the ED, as well as EMS use among patients with chest pain released from the ED, did not change significantly. In this study, despite an 18-month intervention, time from symptom onset to hospital arrival for patients with chest pain did not change differentially between groups, although increased appropriate EMS use occurred in intervention communities. New strategies are needed if delay time from symptom onset to hospital presentation is to be decreased further in patients with suspected AMI. JAMA. 2000;284:60-67
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                18 December 2019
                December 2019
                18 December 2019
                : 2
                : 12
                : e1917885
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                [2 ]Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
                [3 ]Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Wellness, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas
                [4 ]Center for Outcomes Research, Houston Methodist Research Institute, Houston, Texas
                [5 ]Division of Cardiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas
                [6 ]Cardiovascular Imaging Program, Cardiovascular Division and Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [7 ]The Johns Hopkins Ciccarone Center for Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease, Baltimore, Maryland
                [8 ]Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
                [9 ]Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
                [10 ]Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: October 29, 2019.
                Published: December 18, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17885
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Mahajan S et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Khurram Nasir, MD, MPH, MSc, Division of Cardiovascular Prevention and Wellness, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, 6550 Fannin St, Ste 1801, Houston, TX 77030 ( knasir@ 123456houstonmethodist.org ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Mahajan and Nasir had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Mahajan, Valero-Elizondo, Khera, Desai, Virani, Kash, Nasir.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Mahajan, Valero-Elizondo, Khera, Blankstein, Blaha, Kash, Zoghbi, Krumholz, Nasir.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Mahajan, Kash, Nasir.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Mahajan, Valero-Elizondo, Khera, Desai, Blankstein, Blaha, Virani, Zoghbi, Krumholz, Nasir.
                Statistical analysis: Mahajan, Khera.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Mahajan, Khera, Desai, Blaha, Kash, Nasir.
                Supervision: Valero-Elizondo, Nasir.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Khera reported receiving grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr Desai reported receiving grants and personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Relypsa; receiving personal fees from Cytokinetics, Novartis, and scPharmaceuticals; having a contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; and receiving funding from Johnson and Johnson and Medtronic outside the submitted work. Dr Blankstein reported receiving grants from Astellas Pharma, Amgen, and Gilead Sciences; serving on the advisory board of Amgen; and consulting for EKOS outside the submitted work. Dr Blaha reported receiving grants from the American Heart Association, Aetna, Amgen, the National Institutes of Health, and the US Food and Drug Administration and serving on the advisory boards of Amgen, Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and Akcea Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Dr Virani reported receiving grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development, the American Heart Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the World Heart Federation and receiving honorarium from the American College of Cardiology for serving as associate editor outside the submitted work. Dr Krumholz reported working under contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to support quality measurement programs; being a recipient of a research grant, through Yale University, from Medtronic and the US Food and Drug Administration to develop methods for postmarket surveillance of medical devices; being a recipient of a research grant with Medtronic and being the recipient of a research grant from Johnson and Johnson, through Yale University, to support clinical trial data sharing; being a recipient of a research agreement, through Yale University, from the Shenzhen Center for Health Information for work to advance intelligent disease prevention and health promotion; collaborating with the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing; receiving payment from the Arnold and Porter Law Firm for work related to the Sanofi clopidogrel litigation, from the Ben C. Martin Law Firm for work related to the Cook Celect IVC filter litigation, and from the Siegfried and Jensen Law Firm for work related to Vioxx litigation; chairing a cardiac scientific advisory board for UnitedHealth; being a participant/participant representative of the IBM Watson Health Life Sciences Board; being a member of the advisory board for Element Science, the advisory board for Facebook, and the physician advisory board for Aetna; and being the cofounder of HugoHealth, a personal health information platform, and of Refactor Health, an enterprise healthcare artificial intelligence–augmented data management company outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Article
                zoi190674
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17885
                6991230
                31851350
                64f2a182-e919-4348-ada4-665d0cc9f23c
                Copyright 2019 Mahajan S et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 25 September 2019
                : 29 October 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article