Cardiac Rehabilitation After Hospitalization for Acute Coronary Syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) carries a high burden of morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation over the past century has developed as an important tool in treating and preventing future myocardial infarction events in this critical group. We summarize the rationale and literature evidence supporting the use of cardiac rehabilitation and its role in ACS patients, with an emphasis on its impact on outcomes following hospitalization. RECENT FINDINGS: Current literature and large-scale reviews and registry analyses provide conflicting data on the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation after ACS, including its impact on mortality, readmission, and quality of life. Cardiac rehabilitation is an important tool in the management ACS patients. It encompasses not only a graduated exercise regimen but also a holistic approach and is therefore best implemented as a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation strategy including, in addition to exercise regimen, psychosocial counseling, smoking cessation education, medication adherence, nutrition guidance, and other tools for risk modification. Further trials on the role of cardiac rehabilitation after ACS are needed, especially trials examining different cardiac rehabilitation protocols, time period for its implementation after ACS, and optimal program duration.

Evolution of LDL-C lowering medications and their cardiovascular benefits: Past, present, and future.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Hyperlipidemia, particularly elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the major risk factors for CVD. Major landmark cardiovascular outcome clinical trials demonstrated that LDL-C lowering medications reduce cardiovascular events, and the lower the LDL-C the better the outcome. This article discusses the evolution of LDL-C lowering medications starting from bile acid sequestrants (BAS), statin therapy, bempedoic acid, the proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin 9 (PCSK9) synthesis inhibitor, novel small interfering RNA-based therapy (inclisiran) to the most recent oral PCSK9 inhibitors (MK-0616) which is currently under phase 3 clinical trial studies.

Healthcare Providers' Experience Using Telehealth During the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Predominantly Rural Patient Base: An Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 led to the rapid adoption of telemedicine with a significant spike in the literature concerning the patients' perspective of its use. The providers' perspective has been less well studied. Med Center Health is a healthcare network that provides services in 10 southern Kentucky counties that are home to over 300,000 people with approximately 61% of this population living in areas defined as rural. The goal of this article was to compare the experience of providers serving a predominantly rural population to their patients and compare the experience of providers between each other based on the obtained demographic data. METHODS: An online electronic survey was developed and sent out from July 13th, 2020 to July 27th, 2020 for completion to the 176 physicians of the Med Center Health Physician group. The survey gathered basic demographic information, telemedicine use during COVID-19, and perceptions of telemedicine use during and the role of telemedicine after COVID-19. Perceptions of telemedicine were gauged using Likert and Likert-style questions. Cardiology provider responses were compared to the previously published patient responses. Differences between providers were also analyzed based on the demographic data obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-eight providers responded to the survey with nine providers indicating that they did not use telemedicine during COVID-19. Significant differences between eight cardiologists' and cardiology patients' perceptions of telemedicine visits were seen for internet connectivity (p < 0.001), privacy (p = 0.01), and clinical exam (p < 0.001) with cardiologists ranking these as more concerning or worse in all instances. These results continued when comparing perceptions of patients' in-person experience and providers' perception of telemedicine visits with significant differences observed with clinical exam (p < 0.001), communication (p = 0.048), and overall experience (p = 0.02). No statistically significant differences were seen between cardiologists and other providers. Providers who indicated more than 10 years of practice rated their experience with telemedicine significantly lower in the domains of effective communication (p = 0.004), level of care provided (p = 0.02), thoroughness of clinical exam (p = 0.047), patient comfort discussing concerns (p = 0.04), and overall experience (p = 0.048). Despite this, only three providers indicated that they would not use telemedicine post-pandemic with a majority indicating that they would feel comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up visits and medication refill visits. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to our knowledge to compare patient and provider satisfaction concerning telemedicine across a wide array of topics using Likert-style and Likert scale questions and the first to investigate the perception of providers who serve a predominantly rural patient base during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar results have been found in a few previous studies concerning telemedicine being less favorably rated by more experienced providers. Further studies need to be conducted to identify and correct the barriers that exist for providers and the adoption of telemedicine.

Patient Perspectives With Telehealth Visits in Cardiology During COVID-19: Online Patient Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The rise of COVID-19 and the issue of a mandatory stay-at-home order in March 2020 led to the use of a direct-to-consumer model for cardiology telehealth in Kentucky. Kentucky has poor health outcomes and limited broadband connectivity. Given these and other practice-specific constraints, the region serves as a unique context to explore the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the limitations of telehealth accessibility, patient satisfaction with telehealth relative to in-person visits, and the perceived advantages and disadvantages to telehealth. Our intent was two-fold. First, we wanted to conduct a rapid postassessment of the mandated overhaul of the health care delivery system, focusing on a representative specialty field, and how it was affecting patients. Second, we intend to use our findings to make suggestions about the future application of a telehealth model in specialty fields such as cardiology. METHODS: We constructed an online survey in Qualtrics following the Patient Assessment of Communication During Telemedicine, a patient self-report questionnaire that has been previously developed and validated. We invited all patients who had a visit scheduled during the COVID-19 telehealth-only time frame to participate. Questions included factors for declining telehealth, patient satisfaction ratings of telehealth and in-person visits, and perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with telehealth. We also used electronic medical records to collect no-show data for in-person versus telehealth visits to check for nonresponse bias. RESULTS: A total of 224 respondents began our survey (11% of our sample of 2019 patients). Our recruitment rate was 86% (n=193) and our completion rate was 62% (n=120). The no-show rate for telehealth visits (345/2019, 17%) was nearly identical to the typical no-show rate for in-person appointments. Among the 32 respondents who declined a telehealth visit, 20 (63%) cited not being aware of their appointment as a primary factor, and 15 (47%) respondents cited their opinion that a telehealth appointment was not medically necessary as at least somewhat of a factor in their decision. Both in-person and telehealth were viewed favorably, but in-person was rated higher across all domains of patient satisfaction. The only significantly lower mean score for telehealth (3.7 vs 4.2, P=.007) was in the clinical competence domain. Reduced travel time, lower visit wait time, and cost savings were seen as big advantages. Poor internet connectivity was rated as at least somewhat of a factor by 33.0% (35/106) of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: This study takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. Patterns of satisfaction are consistent across modalities and show that telehealth appears to be a viable alternative to in-person appointments. However, we found evidence that scheduling of telehealth visits may be problematic and needs additional attention. Additionally, we include a note of caution that patient satisfaction with telehealth may be artificially inflated during COVID-19 due to external health concerns connected with in-person visits.

Angiographic-only or intravascular ultrasound-guided approach for left-main coronary artery intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in percutaneous revascularization of left-main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) warrants further exploration. We aimed to collate all available data on the merits of IVUS in LMCAD to help decision-making. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies (OCS). The data were analyzed using random-effects model to calculate unadjusted odds ratio (OR) between IVUS-guided and angiography-only LMCA revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (2 RCTs and 12 OCS), comprising 18944 patients, were included. The pooled odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.46-0.70, p = <0.00001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.26-0.54, p = <0.00001), left-main revascularization (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.45-0.89, p = 0.009) and myocardial infarction (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, p = 0.02) were significantly lower with IVUS-guidance. There was no difference observed in the odds of the stent thrombosis (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31-1.05, p = 0.07) and stroke (OR 1.7, 95%CI 0.56-5.14, p = 0.35) between the two groups. A subgroup analysis based on the study design and follow-up duration mirrored the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: IVUS-guided LMCA intervention is associated with overall improved cardiovascular outcomes than the angiography-only approach. This needs to be tested in a large randomized controlled trial.

Relation of Patent Foramen Ovale to Acute Mountain Sickness.

Over 50% of patients who rapidly ascend to extreme altitudes develop various symptoms known as acute mountain sickness (AMS), which rarely can be life threatening. It is unclear why some patients are more susceptible to AMS than others. Our objective was to determine whether patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a risk factor for AMS. Subjects who had hiked to altitudes above 10,000' (∼3,000 meters) on the John Muir Trail in California were recruited. Participants completed a questionnaire and 2-physician adjudication was performed in regard to AMS status. A transcranial Doppler with agitated saline contrast injection was performed to evaluate the presence or absence of PFO. The primary outcome was the development of AMS. From 2016 to 2018, 137 hikers were recruited into the study. There was a higher prevalence of PFO in hikers with AMS 15 of 24 (63%) compared with hikers without AMS 44 of 113 (39%); p = 0.034. In the multivariate model, the presence of a PFO significantly increased the risk for developing AMS: odds ratio 4.15, 95% confidence intervals 1.14 to 15.05; p = 0.030. In conclusion, hikers with a PFO had significantly higher risk of developing AMS relative to hikers without a PFO. Clinicians should consider PFO a risk factor in patients who plan to hike to high altitudes.