Disparities in Geographic Access to Cardiac Rehabilitation in Los Angeles County.

Background Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is known to reduce morbidity and mortality for patients with cardiac conditions. Sociodemographic disparities in accessing CR persist and could be related to the distance between where patients live and where CR facilities are located. Our objective is to determine the association between sociodemographic characteristics and geographic proximity to CR facilities. Methods and Results We identified actively operating CR facilities across Los Angeles County and used multivariable Poisson regression to examine the association between sociodemographic characteristics of residential proximity to the nearest CR facility. We also calculated the proportion of residents per area lacking geographic proximity to CR facilities across sociodemographic characteristics, from which we calculated prevalence ratios. We found that racial and ethnic minorities, compared with non-Hispanic White individuals, more frequently live ≥5 miles from a CR facility. The greatest geographic disparity was seen for non-Hispanic Black individuals, with a 2.73 (95% CI, 2.66-2.79) prevalence ratio of living at least 5 miles from a CR facility. Notably, the municipal region with the largest proportion of census tracts comprising mostly non-White residents (those identifying as Hispanic or a race other than White), with median annual household income <$60 000, contained no CR facilities despite ranking among the county's highest in population density. Conclusions Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics are significantly associated with lack of geographic proximity to a CR facility. Interventions targeting geographic as well as nongeographic factors may be needed to reduce disparities in access to exercise-based CR programs. Such interventions could increase the potential of CR to benefit patients at high risk for developing adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

Temporal variations in the severity of COVID-19 illness by race and ethnicity.

INTRODUCTION: Early reports highlighted racial/ethnic disparities in the severity of COVID-19 seen across the USA; the extent to which these disparities have persisted over time remains unclear. Our research objective was to understand temporal trends in racial/ethnic variation in severity of COVID-19 illness presenting over time. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using longitudinal data from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a high-volume health system in Southern California. We studied patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 illness from 4 March 2020 through 5 December 2020. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 severity of illness among hospitalised patients, assessed by racial/ethnic group status. We defined overall illness severity as an ordinal outcome: hospitalisation but no intensive care unit (ICU) admission; admission to the ICU but no intubation; and intubation or death. RESULTS: A total of 1584 patients with COVID-19 with available demographic and clinical data were included. Hispanic/Latinx compared with non-Hispanic white patients had higher odds of experiencing more severe illness among hospitalised patients (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.22) and this disparity persisted over time. During the initial 2 months of the pandemic, non-Hispanic blacks were more likely to suffer severe illness than non-Hispanic whites (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.78); this disparity improved by May, only to return later in the pandemic. CONCLUSION: In our patient sample, the severity of observed COVID-19 illness declined steadily over time, but these clinical improvements were not seen evenly across racial/ethnic groups; greater illness severity continues to be experienced among Hispanic/Latinx patients.

The Impact of a High-risk Psychosocial Assessment on Outcomes After Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Patient adherence is vital to the success of durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and the pre-MCS assessment of adherence by the multidisciplinary advanced heart failure team is a critical component of the evaluation. We assessed the impact of a high-risk psychosocial assessment before durable MCS implantations on post-MCS outcomes. Between January 2010 and April 2018, 319 patients underwent durable MCS at our center. We excluded those who died or were transplanted before discharge. The remaining 203 patients were grouped by pre-MCS psychosocial assessment: high-risk (26; 12.8%) versus acceptable risk (177; 87.2%). We compared clinical characteristics, nonadherence, and outcomes between groups. High-risk patients were younger (48 vs. 56; p = 0.006) and more often on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at durable MCS placement (26.9% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.007). These patients had a higher incidence of post-MCS nonadherence including missed clinic appointments, incorrect medication administration, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 months, 100% of high-risk patients had unplanned hospitalizations compared with 76.8% of acceptable-risk patients. Per year, high-risk patients had a median of 2.9 hospitalizations per year vs. 1.2 hospitalizations per year in acceptable-risk patients. While not significant, there were more driveline infections over the follow-up period in high-risk patients (27% vs. 14.7%), deaths (27% vs. 18%), and fewer heart transplants (53.8% vs. 63.8%).The pre-MCS psychosocial assessment is associated with post-MCS evidence of nonadherence and unplanned hospitalizations. Attention to pre-MCS assessment of psychosocial risk factors is essential to optimize durable MCS outcomes.