Outcomes Following Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients With and Without Rheumatic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases.

Background Rheumatic immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are associated with high risk of acute coronary syndrome. The long-term prognosis of acute coronary syndrome in patients with rheumatic IMIDs is not well studied. Methods and Results We identified Medicare beneficiaries admitted with a primary diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) from 2014 to 2019. Outcomes of patients with MI and concomitant rheumatic IMIDs including systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, dermatomyositis, or psoriasis were compared with propensity matched control patients without rheumatic IMIDs. One-to-three propensity-score matching was done for exact age, sex, race, ST-segment-elevation MI, and non-ST-segment-elevation MI variables and greedy approach on other comorbidities. The study primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The study cohort included 1 654 862 patients with 3.6% prevalence of rheumatic IMIDs, the most common of which was rheumatoid arthritis, followed by systemic lupus erythematosus. Patients with rheumatic IMIDs were younger, more likely to be women, and more likely to present with non-ST-segment-elevation MI. Patients with rheumatic IMIDs were less likely to undergo coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. After propensity-score matching, at median follow up of 24 months (interquartile range 9-45), the risk of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.15 [95% CI, 1.14-1.17]), heart failure (HR, 1.12 [95% CI 1.09-1.14]), recurrent MI (HR, 1.08 [95% CI 1.06-1.11]), and coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.01-1.13]) (P<0.05 for all) was higher in patients with versus without rheumatic IMIDs. Conclusions Patients with MI and rheumatic IMIDs have higher risk of mortality, heart failure, recurrent MI, and need for coronary reintervention during follow-up compared with patients without rheumatic IMIDs.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Valve Replacement or Repair.

Background We sought to examine outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in atrial fibrillation with valve repair/replacement. Methods and Results Two atrial fibrillation cohorts from Medicare were identified from 2015 to 2019. They comprised patients who underwent surgical or transcatheter mitral valve repair (MV repair cohort) and surgical aortic or mitral bioprosthetic or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (bioprosthetic cohort). Each cohort was divided into warfarin and DOACs (apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran) groups. Study outcomes included mortality, stroke, and major bleeding. Inverse probability weighting was used for adjustment between the 2 groups in each cohort. The MV repair cohort included 1178 patients. After a median of 468 days, DOACs were associated with lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82], P<0.001), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52-1.00], P=0.05) and bleeding (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.99], P=0.04) compared with warfarin. The bioprosthetic cohort included 8089 patients. After a median follow-up of 413 days, DOACs were associated with similar risk of mortality (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.86-1.01], P=0.08), higher risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.13-1.43], P<0.001), and lower risk of bleeding (adjusted HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80-0.93], P<0.001) compared with warfarin. Conclusions In patients with atrial fibrillation, DOACs are associated with similar mortality, lower bleeding, but higher stroke with bioprosthetic valve replacement and lower risk of all 3 outcomes with MV repair compared with warfarin.

Preoperative Atrial Fibrillation and Cardiovascular Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The impact of pre-existing atrial fibrillation (AF) on outcomes after noncardiac surgery is not clear. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to study the impact of AF on the risk of adverse outcomes after noncardiac surgery in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries admitted for noncardiac surgery from 2015 to 2019 and divided the study cohort into 2 groups: with and without AF. Noncardiac surgery was classified into vascular, thoracic, general, genitourinary, gynecological, orthopedics and neurosurgery, breast, head and neck, and transplant. We used propensity score matching on exact age, sex, race, urgency and type of surgery, revised cardiac risk index (RCRI) and CHA2DS2-VASc score, and tight caliper on other comorbidities. The study outcomes were 30-day mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. We examined the incremental utility of AF in addition to RCRI to predict adverse events after noncardiac surgery. RESULTS: The study cohort included 8,635,758 patients who underwent noncardiac surgery (16.4% with AF). Patients with AF were older, more likely to be men, and had higher prevalence of comorbidities. After propensity score matching, AF was associated with higher risk of mortality (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.30-1.32), heart failure (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.30-1.33), and stroke (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.37-1.43) and lower risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.79-0.82). Results were consistent in subgroup analysis by sex, race, type of surgery, and all strata of RCRI and CHA2DS2-VASc score. AF improved the discriminative ability of RCRI (C-statistic 0.73 to 0.76). CONCLUSION: Pre-existing AF is independently associated with postoperative adverse outcomes after NCS.

Outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: Class II obesity affects 1 in 5 patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and is considered a potential barrier to heart transplantation (HT). Studies about the outcomes of bariatric surgery in this population are scarce. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries who had an LVAD placed from 2012 to 2019 and had at least class II obesity at the time of LVAD placement and identified patients who underwent bariatric surgery during or after the LVAD implantation admission. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 30 days (mortality, cerebral hemorrhage, or ischemic stroke) after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2012 to 2019, 2798 (19.4%) had at least class II obesity, and 198 (7.1%) patients had bariatric surgery (24 on same admission and 174 after a median of 702 days). After bariatric surgery in LVAD patients, 30-day MACE was 6.1%, 30-day mortality was <5.5%, and 1-year mortality was 12.6%. Heart failure readmission burden declined after bariatric surgery (incidence rate ratio 0.20 (95% CI 0.11-0.38), p < 0.001). Thirty-seven patients underwent HT after a median of 371 days (IQR 246-575 days), and 13 patients underwent LVAD explant due to recovery. On time-dependent, competing risk, Cox regression, bariatric surgery was associated with a 3-fold higher probability of HT in follow-up compared to patients who did not get bariatric surgery (sub-distribution HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.09-4.17, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery in patients with LVAD support is associated with decreased heart failure events and higher chances of heart transplantation.

Incidence and Prognostic Implications of Readmissions Caused by Thrombotic Events After a Heart Failure Hospitalization.

Background Readmission occurs in 1 out of 3 patients with heart failure (HF). We aimed to study the incidence and prognostic implications of rehospitalizations because of arterial thromboembolism events (ATEs) and venous thromboembolism events (VTEs) after discharge in patients with HF. Methods and Results We identified Medicare beneficiaries who were admitted with a primary diagnosis of HF from 2014 to 2019, with a hospital stay ranging between 3 and10 days, followed by discharge to home. We calculated incidence of ATEs (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or systemic embolism) and VTEs (deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) up to 90 days after discharge. Out of 2 953 299 patients admitted with HF during the study period, a total of 585 353 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 36.6% were readmitted within 90 days of discharge. The incidence of readmission due ATEs, VTEs, HF, and all other reasons was 3.4%, 0.5%, 13.2%, and 19.5%, respectively. Incidence of thromboembolic events was highest within 14 days after discharge. Factors associated with ATEs included prior coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease and for VTEs included malignancy and prior liver or lung disease. ATE/VTE readmission had a 30-day mortality of 19.9%. After a median follow-up period of 25.6 months, ATE and VTE readmissions were associated with higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.76 [95% CI, 2.71-2.81] and 2.17 [95% CI, 2.08-2.27], respectively; P<0.001 for both) compared with no readmission on time-dependent Cox regression. Conclusions After a HF hospitalization, 3.9% of patients were readmitted with a thromboembolic event that was associated with 2- to 3-fold greater risk of mortality in follow-up.

Impact of Multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Availability on Management and Outcomes.

Treatment strategies for complex patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are often debated given patient heterogeneity, multitude of available treatment modalities, and lack of consensus guidelines. Although multidisciplinary Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) are emerging to address this lack of consensus, their impact on patient outcomes is not entirely clear. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of all patients with PE before and after PERT availability. We analyzed all adult patients admitted with acute PE diagnosed on computed tomography scans in the 18 months before and after the institution of PERT at a large tertiary care hospital. Among 769 consecutive inpatients with PE, PERT era patients had lower rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (17.0% vs 8.3%, p = 0.002), shorter time-to-therapeutic anticoagulation (16.3 hour vs 12.6 hour, p = 0.009) and decreased use of inferior vena cava filters (22.2% vs 16.4%, p = 0.004). There was an increase in the use of thrombolytics/catheter-based strategies, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (p = 0.07). There was a significant decrease in 30-day/inpatient mortality (8.5% vs 4.7%, p = 0.03). These differences in outcomes were more pronounced in intermediate and high-risk patients (mortality 10.0% vs 5.3%, p = 0.02). The availability of multidisciplinary PERT was associated with improved outcomes including 30-day mortality. Patients with higher severity of PE seemed to derive most benefit from PERT availability.

Assessment of Outcomes of Treatment With Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis.

Importance: Comparative effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) are unknown. Objective: To determine whether there are differences in efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin regarding stroke prevention and bleeding rates, respectively, in elderly patients with AF with MCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective comparative effectiveness analysis included data from the population-based Medicare beneficiaries database, evaluating patients with new AF diagnosed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2013, who initiated an oral anticoagulant within 90 days of diagnosis. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc scores of 1 to 3, 4 to 5, and 6 or higher; HAS-BLED scores of 0 to 1, 2, and 3 or higher; and Gagne comorbidity scores of 0 to 2, 3 to 4, and 5 or higher were categorized as having low, moderate, or high morbidity, respectively. Within morbidity categories, patients receiving dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were matched using a 3-way propensity matching, and the relative hazards of stroke, major hemorrhage (MH), and death were evaluated. Data analysis included follow-up from the date of initial anticoagulant use through December 31, 2013. Exposures: Rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily), dabigatran (150 mg twice daily), or warfarin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ischemic stroke, MH, and death. Results: The study cohort included 21 979 patients using dabigatran (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 51.1% female), 23 177 using rivaroxaban (mean [SD] age, 75.8 [6.4] years; 49.9% female), and 101 715 using warfarin (mean [SD] age, 78.5 [7.2] years; 57.3% female). In the propensity-matched cohorts, there were no differences in stroke rates between the 3 oral anticoagulant groups. Dabigatran users had lower hazard of MH compared with warfarin users among patients with low MCC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83; P < .001; for MCC defined as low CHA2DS2-VASc score), and similar risk in patients with moderate to high MCC. While there was no difference in MH between rivaroxaban and warfarin users, rivaroxaban users had significantly higher MH risk compared with dabigatran users in the medium and high comorbidity groups (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04-1.48; P = .02 and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.56; P = .01, respectively). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban users had lower rates of death compared with warfarin users (HR ranged from 0.52-0.84), across comorbidity levels. Conclusions and Relevance: Oral anticoagulants are similarly effective in stroke prevention among patients with AF with MCC. However, dabigatran and rivaroxaban use may be associated with lower rates of mortality in patients with MCC.