Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Aortic Valve Replacement Among Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States, 2012-2019.

PURPOSE: There are concerns that transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR/SAVR) procedures are preferentially available to White patients. Our objective was to examine differences in utilization of aortic valve replacement and outcomes by race/ethnicity in the US for patients with aortic stenosis. METHODS: We performed a serial cross-sectional cohort study of 299,976 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis between 2012 and 2019 stratified by self-reported race/ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, and White). Outcomes included aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of index hospitalization and associated procedural outcomes, including 30-day readmission, 30-day and 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Within 6 months of an index admission for aortic stenosis, 86.8% (122,457 SAVR; 138,026 TAVR) patients underwent aortic valve replacement. Overall, compared with White people, Black (HR 0.87 [0.85-0.89]), Hispanic (0.92 [0.88-0.96]), and Asian (0.95 [0.91-0.99]) people were less likely to receive aortic valve replacement. Among patients who were admitted emergently/urgently, White patients (41.1%, 95% CI, 40.7-41.4) had a significantly higher aortic valve replacement rate compared with Black (29.6%, 95% CI, 28.3-30.9), Hispanic (36.6%, 95% CI, 34.0-39.3), and Asian patients (35.4%, 95% CI, 32.3-38.9). Aortic valve replacement rates increased annually for all race/ethnicities. There were no significant differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality by race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve replacement rates within 6 months of aortic stenosis admission are lower for Black, Hispanic, and Asian people compared to White people. These race-related differences in aortic stenosis treatment reflect complex issues in diagnosis and management, warranting a comprehensive reassessment of the entire care spectrum for disadvantaged populations.

Trends in Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Among Older Adults in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Recent trends, including survival beyond 30 days, in aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the expansion of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well-understood. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to characterize the trends in characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing AVR. METHODS: The authors analyzed Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR and SAVR in 2012 to 2019. They evaluated case volume, demographics, comorbidities, 1-year mortality, and discharge disposition. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the annual change in outcomes. RESULTS: Per 100,000 beneficiary-years, AVR increased from 107 to 156, TAVR increased from 19 to 101, whereas SAVR declined from 88 to 54. The median [interquartile range] age remained similar from 77 [71-83] years to 78 [72-84] years for overall AVR, decreased from 84 [79-88] years to 81 [75-86] years for TAVR, and decreased from 76 [71-81] years to 72 [68-77] years for SAVR. For all AVR patients, the prevalence of comorbidities remained relatively stable. The 1-year mortality for all AVR decreased from 11.9% to 9.4%. Annual change in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.94) for TAVR and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for SAVR, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95) for all AVR. Patients discharged to home after AVR increased from 24.2% to 54.7%, primarily driven by increasing home discharge after TAVR. CONCLUSIONS: The advent of TAVR has led to about a 60% increase in overall AVR in older adults. Improving outcomes in AVR as a whole following the advent of TAVR with increased access is a reassuring trend.

Cardiovascular procedural deferral and outcomes over COVID-19 pandemic phases: A multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations. METHODS: Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases. CONCLUSIONS: Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions.

Heterogeneity of Treatment and Outcomes Among Asians With Coronary Artery Disease in the United States.

Background Prior data demonstrate significant heterogeneity regarding coronary artery disease risk factors and outcomes among Asians in the United States, but no studies have yet examined coronary artery disease treatment patterns or outcomes among disaggregated Asian American subgroups. Methods and Results From a total of 772 882 patients with known race/ethnicity and sex who received care from a mixed-payer healthcare organization in Northern California between 2006 and 2015, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 6667 adults with coronary artery disease. Logistic regression was used to examine medical and procedural therapies and outcomes by race/ethnicity, with adjustment for age, sex, income, and baseline comorbidities. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Chinese were more likely to undergo stenting (50.9% versus 60.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.39 [95% CI, 1.04-1.87], p=0.005), whereas Filipinos were more likely to receive bypass surgery (6.9% versus 20.5%, OR 2.65 [95% CI, 1.75-4.01], P<0.0001). After stenting, Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be prescribed clopidogrel (86.2%, 83.0%, and 91.4% versus 74.5%, ORs 1.86 [95% CI, 1.13-3.04], 1.86 [95% CI, 1.01-3.44], and 4.37 [95% CI, 1.02-18.67], respectively, P<0.0001). Lastly, Chinese and Asian Indians were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed with a myocardial infarction within 1 year postangiography (15.6% and 17.4% versus 11.2%, ORs 1.49 [95% CI, 1.02-2.19] and 1.68 [95% CI, 1.21-2.34], respectively, P<0.0001). Conclusions Disaggregation of Asian Americans with coronary artery disease into individual racial/ethnic subgroups reveals significant variability in treatment patterns and outcomes. Further investigation into these differences may expose important opportunities to mitigate disparities and improve quality of care in this diverse population.

Association of insurance type with receipt of oral anticoagulation in insured patients with atrial fibrillation: A report from the American College of Cardiology NCDR PINNACLE registry.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood whether insurance type may be a major contributor to the underuse of oral anticoagulation (OAC) among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), particularly for novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort registry study of patients with insurance, AF, CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2, and at least one outpatient encounter recorded in the ACC NCDR's PINNACLE Registry between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2014. We used hierarchical regression, adjusting for patient characteristics and clustering by physician, to evaluate the association of insurance type (Private, Military, Medicare, Medicaid, Other) with receipt of OAC (any OAC, warfarin, or NOAC). RESULTS: In 363,309 patients (age 75±10; 48% female), we found a significant difference in proportions of OAC and NOAC prescription across insurance types (OAC: Military 53%, Private 53%, Medicare 52%, Other 41%, Medicaid 41%, P<.001; NOAC: Military 24%, Private 19%, Medicare 17%, Other 17%, Medicaid 8%, P<.001). After adjustment for patient characteristics and facility, private, Medicaid, and other insurance were independently associated with a lower odds of OAC prescription relative to Medicare, but military insured patients were not significantly different. After adjustment, military and private insurance were independently associated with a higher odds of NOAC prescription relative to Medicare, while Medicaid and other insurance were associated with a lower odds of NOAC prescription. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary US AF population, there was significant variation of OAC prescription across insurance plans, with the highest among private and Medicare insured patients. These differences may indicate that insurance plan, and its associated pharmacy benefits, affect the pace of diffusion of new therapies.

Socioeconomic inequalities in quality of care and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the modern era of drug eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly changing landscape of percutaneous coronary intervention provides a unique model for examining disparities over time. Previous studies have not examined socioeconomic inequalities in the current era of drug eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 835 070 hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011, examining whether quality of care and outcomes for patients with ACS differed by income (based on zip code of residence) with adjustment for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that lower-income patients were less likely to receive an angiogram within 24 hours of a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (69.5% for IQ1 versus 73.7% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.79 [0.68 to 0.91]) or within 48 hours of a Non-STEMI (47.6% for IQ1 versus 51.8% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.86 [0.75 to 0.99]). Lower income was associated with less use of a DES (64.7% for IQ1 versus 71.2% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.83 [0.74 to 0.93]). However, no differences were found for coronary artery bypass surgery. Among STEMI patients, lower-income patients also had slightly increased adjusted mortality rates (10.8% for IQ1 versus 9.4% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 1.17 [1.11 to 1.25]). After further adjusting for time to reperfusion among STEMI patients, mortality differences across income groups decreased. CONCLUSIONS: For the most well accepted procedural treatments for ACS, income inequalities have faded. However, such inequalities have persisted for DES use, a relatively expensive and until recently, controversial revascularization procedure. Differences in mortality are significantly associated with differences in time to primary PCI, suggesting an important target for understanding why these inequalities persist.

Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standardized, comprehensive method to assess surgical scars after breast cancer surgery. This article evaluates the application of the Vancouver Scar Scale, in conjunction with patients' scar self-rating and scar-related pain, in a cohort of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in 59 women with breast cancer. Scar assessment comprised: 1. objective rating by pairs of independent observers using the Vancouver Scar Scale; 2. patient's ratings of the scar's physical parameters and overall satisfaction; and 3. pain assessment using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. A total of 212 scar scores (59 pairs of breast/chest wall and 47 pairs of axillary scar scores) were generated by 13 observers: three physicians, five radiation therapists, and five nurses. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha statistics. Interobserver reliability was evaluated with Spearman's rho and intraclass correlation coefficient computations. Convergent validity of the observer and patient ratings was examined with Spearman's correlation statistics. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify significant factors associated with Vancouver Scar Scale scores and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The Vancouver Scar Scale, patient self-rating scale, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79, 0.64, and 0.72 respectively). Interobserver reliability using the Vancouver Scar Scale was significant with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.53 for pliability, 0.47 for scar height, 0.49 for vascularity, 0.54 for pigmentation, and 0.66 for overall score (all p values < 0.001). Significant agreement between observer and patient ratings of scar pliability (p = 0.01) and color (p = 0.001) was demonstrated. Mild to moderate pain was reported by more than 40 percent of patients. Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with self-rating of scar pliability and pain, but not Vancouver Scar Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Vancouver Scar Scale is a reliable and valid tool to objectively evaluate scars after breast cancer surgery. Evaluation of scar-related pain and patients' scar rating and satisfaction provide additional information relevant to scar assessment. This integrated approach is feasible in a busy clinical setting to advance care and research in scar management for breast cancer patients.