Health Outcome and Follow-up Care Differences Between First Nation and Non-First Nation Coronary Angiogram Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: First Nations (FN) people experience high rates of ischemic heart disease (IHD) morbidity and mortality. Increasing access to angiography may lead to improved outcomes. We compared various outcomes and follow-up care post-index angiography between FN and non-FN patients. Methods: All index angiography patients in Manitoba were identified between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2009 and categorized into acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or non-AMI groups based on whether their angiogram occurred within 7 days of an AMI. Cox proportional hazard models estimated associations between FN status and outcomes related to mortality, subsequent hospitalizations, revascularizations, and physician visits. Results: Cardiovascular mortality was higher among FN patients in the non-AMI group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-1.94) and in the AMI group (HR = 1.57, 95% CI, 1.05-2.35). FN patients were also more likely to have a subsequent hospitalization for AMI (HR = 2.26, 95% CI, 1.79-2.85) in the non-AMI group. FN patients in the non-AMI group were less likely to receive percutaneous coronary intervention (HR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.73-0.99) and more likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft (HR = 1.26, 95% CI, 1.10-1.45). FN patients in both groups were less likely to visit a cardiologist/cardiac surgeon, internal medicine specialist, or family physician within 3 months and 1 year of angiography. Conclusions: Cardiovascular health and follow-up care outcomes of FN and non-FN patients who undergo angiography are not the same. Addressing Indigenous determinants of health are necessary to improve cardiovascular outcomes.