Management and outcome in foreign-born vs native-born patients with myocardial infarction in Sweden

Aims Previous studies on disparities in healthcare and outcomes have shown conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess differences in baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes in myocardial infarction (MI) patients, by country of birth.Methods and results In total, 194 259 MI patients (64% male, 15% foreign-born) from the nationwide SWEDEHEART (The Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry were included and compared by geographic region of birth. The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) including all-cause death, MI, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were long-term MACE (up to 12 years), the individual components of MACE, 30-day mortality, management, and risk factors. Logistic regression, Cox proportional hazard models, and propensity score match (PSM), accounting for baseline differences, were used. Foreign-born patients were younger, often male, and had a higher cardiovascular (CV) risk factor burden, including smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. In PSM analyses, Asia-born patients had higher likelihood of revascularization [odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-1.30], statins and beta-blocker prescription at discharge, and a 34% lower risk of 30-day mortality. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found in primary outcomes except for Asia-born patients having lower risk of 1-year MACE [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.98], driven by lower mortality (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.91). The results persisted over the long-term follow-up.Conclusion This study shows that in a system with universal healthcare coverage in which acute and secondary preventive treatments do not differ by country of birth, foreign-born patients, despite higher CV risk factor burden, will do at least as well as native-born patients. Graphical Abstract