Social Determinants of Health and Comorbidities Among Individuals with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey.

Individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) often have a high burden of comorbidities. Social determinants of health (SDOH) may complicate adherence to treatment in these patients. This study assessed the association of comorbidities and SDOH among individuals with ASCVD. Cross-sectional data from the 2016 to 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a nationally representative US telephone-based survey of adults ages ≥18 years, were used. Cardiovascular comorbidities included hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, current cigarette smoking, and chronic kidney disease. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer, and depression. SDOH associated with being at or above the 75th percentile of comorbidity burden were analyzed using multivariable adjusted logistic regression models. The study population included 387,044 individuals, 9% of whom had ASCVD. The mean (SD) numbers of total, cardiovascular, and non-cardiovascular comorbidities were 1.97 (1.27), 1.28 (0.74), 0.69 (0.91) among those without ASCVD and 3.28 (1.62), 1.73 (0.91), and 1.54 (1.22) among those with ASCVD, respectively (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Female gender, household income ≤$75,000, being unemployed, and difficulty accessing health care were significantly associated with a higher burden of comorbidities among those with ASCVD. The mean (SD) numbers of comorbidities for those with 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 of the aforementioned SDOH were 2.89 (1.45), 2.86 (1.47), 3.39 (1.58), and 4.01 (1.73), respectively (P < 0.001). Among persons with ASCVD, the burden of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular comorbidities is directly proportional to SDOH in any given individual. Clinicians should address SDOH when managing high-risk individuals.

Is There Still a Role for Aspirin in Primary Prevention in Women in 2020?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Aspirin's place in primary prevention for females has not been well delineated and has been under increased scrutiny in light of recent literature and guideline recommendations. The purpose of this review is to discuss current literature reviewing aspirin use for primary prevention in women and to discuss when use is appropriate. RECENT FINDINGS: The Women's Health Study found no differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in women randomized to aspirin vs. placebo, though a significant reduction was observed in women ≥ 65 years. More recent literature evaluated outcomes for primary prevention use in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, patients with diabetes, and patients who are elderly. These trials found either no benefit in MACE outcomes or a slight benefit accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Furthermore, no difference in outcomes were found in subgroup analyses comparing females receiving aspirin vs. placebo or comparing events in males vs. females. With improvements in risk factor reduction, such as blood pressure control, statin use, diabetes management, and smoking cessation, the role of aspirin for primary prevention in women is still uncertain. Aspirin use for primary prevention in females has failed to show a clear benefit except in women ≥ 65 years old, with a potential increase in bleeding events. An effort to better study aspirin in female patients would allow for better identification of women who would or would not benefit from therapy.

Deprescribing in Older Adults With Cardiovascular Disease.

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.

2017 Focused Update of the 2016 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways.

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C <190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided.

Surgery for Aortic Dilatation in Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Valves: A Statement of Clarification From the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Two guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and collaborating societies address the risk of aortic dissection in patients with bicuspid aortic valves and severe aortic enlargement: the "2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Thoracic Aortic Disease" (Circulation. 2010;121:e266-e369) and the "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease" (Circulation. 2014;129:e521-e643). However, the 2 guidelines differ with regard to the recommended threshold of aortic root or ascending aortic dilatation that would justify surgical intervention in patients with bicuspid aortic valves. The ACC and AHA therefore convened a subcommittee representing members of the 2 guideline writing committees to review the evidence, reach consensus, and draft a statement of clarification for both guidelines. This statement of clarification uses the ACC/AHA revised structure for delineating the Class of Recommendation and Level of Evidence to provide recommendations that replace those contained in Section 9.2.2.1 of the thoracic aortic disease guideline and Section 5.1.3 of the valvular heart disease guideline.