Gender, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences in access to catheter ablation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Introduction: Female patients, patients from racial minorities, and patient with low socioeconomic status have been noted to have less access to catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study using a large population database (Explorys) to evaluate the gender, racial and socioeconomic differences in access of catheter ablation therapy in patient with atrial fibrillation. Results: A total of 2.2 million patients were identified as having atrial fibrillation and 62,760 underwent ablation. Females had ablation in 2.1% of cases while males received ablation in 3.4% of cases. Caucasians had ablation in 3.3% of cases, African Americans in 1.5% of cases and other minorities in 1.2% of cases. Individuals on medicaid underwent ablation in 1.6% of cases, individuals on medicare and private insurance had higher rates (2.8 and 2.9%, respectively). Logistic regression showed that female patients (OR 0.608, CI 0.597-0.618, p < 0.0001), patients who are African American (OR 0.483, CI 0.465-0.502, p < 0.0001), or from other racial minorities (OR 0.343, CI 0.332-0.355, p < 0.0001) were less likely to undergo ablation. Patient with medicare (OR 1.444, CI 1.37-1.522, p < 0.0001) and private insurance (OR 1.572, CI 1.491-1.658, p < 0.0001) were more likely to undergo ablation. Conclusion: Female gender, racial minorities, low socioeconomic status are all associated with lower rates of catheter ablation in management of atrial fibrillation.

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest within the United States: Now is the time for change.

This review highlights the current evidence on racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in cardiac arrest outcomes within the United States. Several studies demonstrate that patients from Black, Hispanic, or lower socioeconomic status backgrounds suffer the most from disparities at multiple levels of the resuscitation pathway, including in the provision of bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillator usage, and postresuscitation therapies. These gaps in care may altogether lead to lower survival rates and worse neurological outcomes for these patients. A multisystem, culturally sensitive approach to improving cardiac arrest outcomes is suggested in this article.

Assessment of safety of performing percutaneous coronary intervention after a recent episode of gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Little literature exists on the risk of performing coronary intervention (PCI) on patients who have had recent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), although bleeding after PCI has been identified as a risk factor for long-term mortality. METHODS: Patients within the Cleveland Clinic PCI database who had acute GIB within 30 days preceding PCI during the same hospitalization (n = 79) were retrospectively compared to those who had PCI without recent GIB (n = 10 979) for mortality and need for revascularization. Baseline characteristics, laboratory values, procedures, morbidities, and mortality were compared using chi-square test for categorical variables and using Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables. Mortality data was obtained using Social Security Death Index and demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The GIB group had more prevalent history of peptic ulcer disease, GIB, gastrointestinal or liver disease (P < 0.0001), transient ischemic accident (P = 0.017), peripheral vascular disease (P = 0.0002), significant carotid artery occlusion (P = 0.023), and myocardial infarction (P < 0.0001). 47% of patients had upper GIB with 20% needing endoscopic intervention. This group had more anemia (P < 0.0001), heart failure (P = 0.0001), cardiogenic shock (10% versus 1.4%, P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (7.6% versus 1%, P < 0.001). GIB group had worse in-hospital mortality (P < 0.0001), long-term mortality (P < 0.001), and a 7.6% re-bleeding incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the patients who had GIB preceding PCI had higher in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality compared with those without GIB before PCI.

Outcomes after endocarditis or device infection in patients with left ventricular epicardial leads versus coronary sinus leads.

BACKGROUND: There is scant data about outcomes in patients with left ventricular epicardial (LVE) leads who develop endocarditis or device-related infection. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study evaluated mortality and recurrence of infection among patients with LVE leads in comparison to patients with endovascular coronary sinus (CS) leads after the development of endocarditis or device-related infection. METHODS: Patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices who developed endocarditis or pocket infection over 5 years at Cleveland Clinic were included in the study. The groups were all patients with LVE leads versus CRT devices without epicardial leads that developed endocarditis or pocket infection. Mortality was assessed using the Social Security Death Index and re-infection was assessed by reviews of the medical record. RESULTS: Prospective extraction of the CRT device and leads occurred among all 50 patients with CS leads and 8 of the 14 patients with LVE leads. The survival rate was 92.9 versus 92 % and freedom from re-infection rate was 64.3 versus 80 % in the patients with LVE leads versus CS leads, respectively, over 1 year (P value = 0.918 and 0.226, respectively). At 3 years, the survival rate in LVE lead group was 92.9 % and freedom from re-infection rate was 64.3 % in comparison to survival rate of 90 % and freedom from re-infection rate of 68 % in the CS group (P value = 0.751 and 0.798, respectively). CONCLUSION: After development of endocarditis or pocket infection, no statistically significant differences were seen in mortality, or recurrent infection between patients with LVE leads and those with CS leads.