Trends and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: A National Inpatient Sample Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are limited national data on the trends and outcomes of patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the impact of early COVID-19 pandemic on the trends and outcomes of AMI using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. METHODS: The NIS database was queried from January 2019 to December 2020 to identify adult (age ≥18 years) AMI hospitalizations and were categorized into ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) based on International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. In addition, the in-hospital mortality, revascularization, and resource utilization of AMI hospitalizations early in the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) were compared to those in the pre-pandemic period (2019) using multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Amongst 1,709,480 AMI hospitalizations, 209,450 STEMI and 677,355 NSTEMI occurred in 2019 while 196,230 STEMI and 626,445 NSTEMI hospitalizations occurred in 2020. Compared with those in 2019, the AMI hospitalizations in 2020 had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], [1.23-1.32]; p<0.01) and lower odds of percutaneous coronary intervention (aOR, 0.95 [0.92-0.99]; p=0.02), and coronary artery bypass graft (aOR, 0.90 [0.85-0.97]; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant decline in AMI hospitalizations and use of revascularization, with higher in-hospital mortality, during the early COVID-19 pandemic period (2020) compared with the pre-pandemic period (2019). Further research into the factors associated with increased mortality could help with preparedness in future pandemics.

Racial, ethnic and sex disparity in acute heart failure patients with COVID-19: A nationwide analysis.

Background: Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) exacerbation are susceptible to complications in the setting of COVID-19 infection. Data regarding the racial/ethnic and sex disparities in patients with AHF and COVID-19 remains limited. Objective: We aim to evaluate the impact of race, ethnicity, and sex on the in-hospital outcomes of AHF with COVID-19 infection using the data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Methods: We extracted data from the NIS (2020) by using ICD-10-CM to identify all hospitalizations with a diagnosis of AHF and COVID-19 in the year 2020. The associations between sex, race/ethnicity, and outcomes were examined using a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: We identified a total of 158,530 weighted AHF hospitalizations with COVID-19 infection in 2020. The majority were White (63.9 %), 23.3 % were Black race, and 12.8 % were of Hispanic ethnicity, mostly males (n = 84,870 [53.5 %]). After adjustment, the odds of in-hospital mortality were lowest in White females (aOR 0.83, [0.78-0.98]) and highest in Hispanic males (aOR 1.27 [1.13-1.42]) compared with White males. Overall, the odds of cardiac arrest (aOR 1.54 [1.27-1.85]) and AKI (aOR 1.36 [1.26-1.47] were higher, while odds for procedural interventions such as PCI (aOR 0.23 [0.10-0.55]), and placement on a ventilator (aOR 0.85 [0.75-0.97]) were lower among Black males in comparison to White males. Conclusion: Male sex was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality in white and black racial groups, while no such association was noted in the Hispanic group. Hispanic males had the highest odds of death compared with White males.

A Medical Resident's Dilemma: Clinical Proficiency vs Research Publication.

As an international medical graduate doing internal medicine residency in the United States, the challenges faced by residents aspiring to secure highly competitive fellowships, particularly in the field of cardiovascular disease, are highlighted in this correspondence. There is a delicate balance between maintaining clinical proficiency and building a robust research portfolio, emphasizing the unique struggles encountered by individuals in similar situations. Throughout my residency journey, I have navigated the intricate path of managing the demands of medical education, clinical responsibilities, and research pursuits.

Early vs. Late Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Acute Heart Failure Hospitalizations: A Comparative Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular disease in the USA. Patients undergoing urgent or emergent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have worse clinical outcomes than those undergoing non-urgent procedures. No studies have examined the impact of procedural TAVR timing on outcomes in AS complicated by acute heart failure (AHF). AIMS: We aimed to evaluate differences in in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes between early (<48 hours) vs. late (≥48 hours) TAVR in patients hospitalized with AHF using a real-world US database. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample database to identify hospitalizations with a diagnosis of AHF, aortic valve disease, and a TAVR procedure (2015-2020). The associations between TAVR timing and clinical outcomes were examined using logistic regression model. RESULTS: A total of 25,290 weighted AHF hospitalizations were identified, of which 6,855 patients (27.1%) underwent early TAVR, and 18,435 (72.9%) late TAVR. Late TAVR patients had higher in-hospital mortality rate (2.2% vs. 2.8%, p<0.01) on unadjusted analysis but no significant difference following adjustment for demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics [aOR 1.00 (0.82-1.23)]. Late TAVR was associated with higher odds of cardiac arrest (aOR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.18-1.90) and use of mechanical circulatory support (aOR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.68-2.51). Late TAVR was associated with longer hospital stay (11 days vs. 4 days, p<0.01) and higher costs ($72,851 vs. $53,209, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Early TAVR was conducted in approximately 25% of the AS patients admitted with AHF, showing improved in-hospital outcomes before adjustment, with no significant differences observed after adjustment.

Rates and Predictors of Structural Valve Degeneration and Failure of Trifecta Bioprosthetic Valve Over a 5-year Follow-up Period: A Single-center Experience.

Introduction: The Trifecta bioprosthetic valve has been commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Multiple studies have been done to define the rate of structural valve degeneration (SVD) and failure (SVF), but the outcomes are still debatable. Therefore, we aim to conduct this single-center study to estimate the rate and predictors of SVD/SVF. Methodology: This retrospective observational cohort single-center study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 among Trifecta SAVR patients. Data were patient's characteristics collected from electronic medical records at baseline and follow-up (3-5 years). Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Results: A total of 271 eligible patients were identified. Most of our sample were males (57.9%), with a mean age of 71.1 ± 10.6 years. The mean baseline preoperative ejection fraction (EF) was 53.0%, with no change (P = 0.88) in the immediate postoperative EF (53.6%). A most recent follow-up EF revealed a significant increase of EF (55.2%), P = 0.01. Furthermore, there was a significant increase from peak velocity to PVMRE (mean difference [MD] ± standard error of mean (SEM) [0.15 ± 0.04], P < 0.01), an increase in pressure gradient (PGIPE) to PGMRE (MD ± SEM [1.70 ± 0.49], P < 0.01), and a decrease in Doppler velocity index (DVIIPE) to DVIMRE (MD ± SEM [-0.037 ± 0.01], P = 0.01). Regarding the SVF rate, 13 (4.8%) patients had failed valves requiring replacement throughout the study period. Conclusions: Over a 5-year follow-up period, 4.8% had SVF with an SVD of 23.2%, with the majority of SVD not being clinically significant except in six patients. These results corroborate with a previously published study suggesting a bad clinical outcome of Trifecta valve placement.

Should primary care physicians consult on their admitted patients? A single-center survey study.

Background: With the rise of hospital medicine, care has become fragmented between inpatient and outpatient settings. Having primary care physicians (PCPs) consult on their admitted patients through televisits could improve patient and hospital outcomes, but perspectives on this model are unknown in adult hospital medicine. Methods: A single-center cross-sectional survey was conducted to compare PCP and hospitalist attitudes regarding PCP telemedicine consultation for admitted patients in a large US academic hospital. Results: A total of 120 participants (52 hospitalists and 68 PCPs) responded to the survey. Most hospitalists believed that their patients would benefit from PCP consultation, with 45.8% believing it was slightly important, 18.8% moderately important, and 22.9% quite important. The level of importance did not seem to influence the effort required, as most hospitalists would put in only a little effort (35.4%) to obtain a PCP consultation. PCPs were more inclined to consult on their admitted patients; 18.6% considered it slightly important to obtain their consultation, 35.6% believed it was moderately important, and 23.7% believed it was quite important. PCPs were willing to put more effort into setting up a PCP consultation (some effort, 45.8%) vs hospitalists (little effort, 35.4%). The most common challenge perceived by both groups was time commitment (hospitalists, 78.8%; PCPs, 75.0%). Conclusions: Both hospitalists and PCPs agree that a PCP consultation would benefit the patient's medical care in specific situations. However, views on the importance and frequency of PCP consultations vary between the two groups.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the volume, cost, and outcomes of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in the United States.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, professional societies recommended deferral of elective procedures for optimal resource utilization. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess changes in procedural trends and outcomes of electrophysiology (EP) procedures during the pandemic. METHODS: National Inpatient Sample databases were used to identify all EP procedures performed in the United States (2016-2020) by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. We evaluated trends in utilization, cost/revenue, and outcomes from EP procedures performed. RESULTS: An estimated 1.35 million EP procedures (82% devices and 18% catheter ablations) were performed (2016-2020) with significant yearly uptrend. During the pandemic, there was a substantial decline in EP procedure utilization from a 5-year peak of 298 cases/million population in the second quarter of 2019 to a nadir of 220 cases in the second quarter of 2020. In 2020, the pandemic was associated with the loss of 50,233 projected EP procedures (39,337 devices and 10,896 ablations) with subsequent revenue loss of $7.06 billion. This deficit was driven by revenue deficit from dual-chamber permanent pacemaker (PPM) utilization ($2.88 billion, 49.3% of lost cases), ablation procedures ($1.84 billion, 21.7% of lost cases), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation ($1.36 billion, 12.0% of lost cases). To the contrary, there was a 9.4% increase in the utilization of leadless PPM. EP device implantation during the pandemic was associated with higher adverse in-hospital events (9.4% vs 8.0%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: In the United States, the significant decline in EP procedures during the pandemic was primarily driven by the reduction in dual-chamber PPM utilization, followed by arrhythmia ablation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. There was a substantial increase in leadless PPM utilization during the pandemic.

Higher body mass index is strongly linked to poor outcomes in adult COVID-19 hospitalizations: A National Inpatient Sample Study.

Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in more than 6 million deaths worldwide. Studies on the impact of obesity on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia have been conflicting, with some studies describing worse outcomes in patients with obesity, while other studies reporting no difference in outcomes. Previous studies on obesity and critical illness have described improved outcomes in patients with obesity, termed the "obesity paradox." The study assessed the impact of obesity on the outcomes of COVID-19 hospitalizations, using a nationally representative database. Materials and Methods: ICD-10 code U071 was used to identify all hospitalizations with the principal diagnosis of COVID-19 infection in the National Inpatient Database 2020. ICD-10 codes were used to identify outcomes and comorbidities. Hospitalizations were grouped based on body mass index (BMI). Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Results: A total of 56,033 hospitalizations were identified. 48% were male, 49% were white and 22% were black. Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia in the setting of obesity and clinically severe obesity were often younger. Adjusted for differences in comorbidities, there was a significant increase in mortality, incidence of mechanical ventilation, shock, and sepsis with increased BMI. The mortality was highest among hospitalizations with BMI ≥60, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.66 (95% Confidence interval 2.18-3.24) compared to hospitalizations with normal BMI. There were increased odds of mechanical ventilation across all BMI groups above normal, with the odds of mechanical ventilation increasing with increasing BMI. Conclusion: The results show that obesity is independently associated with worse patient outcomes in COVID-19 hospitalizations and is associated with higher in-patient mortality and higher rates of mechanical ventilation. The underlying mechanism of this is unclear, and further studies are needed to investigate the cause of this.

Feasibility and Safety of Intracardiac Echocardiography Guidance in Mitral Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair: Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Data From 2015 to 2020.

Data on the use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) guidance in mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (mTEER) procedure is limited to case reports and small case series. Our study aims to assess the feasibility, safety, utilization patterns, and clinical outcomes of mTEER procedure with ICE guidance using a nationally representative real-world cohort of patients. This study used the National Inpatient Sample database from quarter 4 of 2015 to 2020. We used a propensity-matched analysis and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital outcomes/complications. A P value of < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 38,770 weighted cases of mTEER were identified. Of the included patients 665 patients underwent ICE-guided mTEER while 38,105 had TEE-guided mTEER. There were no differences in the in-hospital mortality between both groups (2.5% vs 3.0%, P = 0.58). Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.83, 95%CI [0.42-1.64]) were not significantly different. There were no differences in periprocedural complications including cardiac (aOR 0.85, 95%CI [0.54-1.35]), bleeding (aOR 1.45, 95%CI [0.93-2.33]), respiratory (aOR 0.88, 95%CI [0.61-1.25]), and renal (aOR 0.89, 95%CI [0.66-1.20]) complications between patients undergoing ICE-guided vs TEE-guided mTEER. There was no difference in GI complications between both groups (aOR 1.11, 95%CI [0.46-2.70]). The adjusted length of stay was less among ICE-guided mTEER (median: 1 vs 2, P < 0.01) with lower inflation-adjusted costs of hospitalization ($35,513 vs $47,067, P < 0.01). ICE-guided mTEER is safe when compared with TEE guided mTEER with no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, cardiac, bleeding, respiratory, and renal complications.

Feasibility and Safety of Intracardiac Echocardiography Use in Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Procedures.

Background: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is usually performed under the guidance of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Data on the safety of intracardiac echocardiogram (ICE)-guided LAAC from a real-world population in the United States remain limited. In this study, the aim was to evaluate the trends and outcomes of ICE-guided LAAC procedures using the US National Inpatient Sample. Methods: This study used the National Inpatient Sample database from quarter 4 of 2015 to 2019. We used a propensity-matched analysis and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital outcomes/complications. A P value of <.05 was considered significant. Results: We identified 61,995 weighted LAAC cases. Of these, 1410 patients had ICE-guided LAAC with a lower median age than the patients who had TEE-guided LAAC (75 vs 77 years; P ≤ .01). The use of ICE-guided LAAC increased from 1.7% in 2015 to 2.2% in 2019 (P trend = .75). Major, cardiovascular, neurologic, and pulmonary complications were similar for ICE-guided and TEE-guided LAAC on adjusted analysis. On propensity-matched analysis, the overall vascular complication rates were similar. However, retroperitoneal bleeding remained significantly higher (0.7% vs 0%) with ICE. Gastrointestinal bleeding complications were more frequent in TEE-guided LAAC (3.5% vs 2.1%). The length of stay was similar for both groups (median = 1 day; P = .23); however, ICE was associated with $1769 excess cost of hospitalization ($25,112 vs $23,343; P = .04). Conclusions: ICE-guided LAAC is safer than TEE-guided LAAC, with similar rates of major complications. However, ICE use was associated with lower rates of gastrointestinal bleeding and higher rates of retroperitoneal bleeding. In addition, ICE-guided LAAC is associated with a similar length of stay but higher costs of hospitalization.