Outcomes of Patients with Opioid-Related Diagnoses in Acute Coronary Syndrome: a National Inpatient Sample-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and opioid use are both major causes of morbidity and mortality globally. Although epidemiological studies point to increased risk of ACS in opioid users, in-hospital management and outcomes are unknown for this population when presenting with ACS. We sought to determine whether there are differences for in-hospital outcomes and management of ACS for those with and without opioid-related diagnoses (ORD). METHODS AND RESULTS: From the National Inpatient Sample database, we extracted patients hospitalized between 2012 and 2016 for ACS. The primary independent variable was ORD by International Classification of Diseases, 9th and 10th Revision, codes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were cardiac arrest, receipt of angiogram, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Statistical comparisons were performed using χ2 test and Student's t test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine the independent association between ORD and outcomes of interest. Among the estimated 5.8 million admissions for ACS, the proportion of patients with ORD increased over the study period (p for trend < 0.01). Compared to patients without ORD presenting with ACS, patients with ORD were younger with fewer cardiovascular risk factors. Yet, in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with ORD presenting with ACS (AOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.48). Patients with ORD were more likely to experience in-hospital cardiac arrest (AOR 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.63) and less likely to undergo angiogram (AOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.38-0.45) or PCI (AOR 0.30, 95% CI 0.28-0.32). CONCLUSION: Despite evidence of increased risk of mortality and cardiac arrest, patients with ORD admitted for ACS are less likely to receive ACS management.

The Prognostic Value of CAC Zero Among Individuals Presenting With Chest Pain: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little consensus on whether absence of coronary artery calcium (CAC) can identify patients with chest pain (CP) who can safely avoid additional downstream testing. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of CAC assessment for ruling out obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) among patients with stable and acute CP, at low-to-intermediate risk of obstructive CAD undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA). METHODS: The authors searched online databases for studies published between 2005 and 2021 examining the relationship between CAC and obstructive CAD (≥50% coronary luminal narrowing) on coronary CTA among patients with stable and acute CP. RESULTS: In this review, the authors included 19 papers comprising 79,903 patients with stable CP and 13 papers including 12,376 patients with acute CP undergoing simultaneous CAC and coronary CTA assessment. Overall, 45% (95% CI: 40%-50%) of patients with stable CP and 58% (95% CI: 50%-66%) of patients with acute CP had CAC = 0. The negative predictive values for CAC = 0 ruling out obstructive CAD were 97% (95% CI: 96%-98%) and 98% (95% CI: 96%-99%) among patients with stable and acute CP, respectively. Additionally, the prevalence of nonobstructive CAD among those with CAC = 0 was 13% (95% CI: 10%-16%) among those with stable CP and 9% (95% CI: 5%-13%) among those with acute CP. A CAC score of zero predicted a low incidence of major adverse cardiac events among patients with stable CP (0.5% annual event rate) and acute CP (0.8% overall event rate). CONCLUSIONS: Among over 92,000 patients with stable or acute CP, the absence of CAC was associated with a very low prevalence of obstructive CAD, a low prevalence of nonobstructive CAD, and a low annualized risk of major adverse cardiac events. These findings support the role of CAC = 0 in a value-based health care delivery model as a "gatekeeper" for more advanced imaging among patients presenting with CP.

The Impact of Depression on Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated in the GUIDE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear why depression is associated with adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). We examine the relationship between depression and clinical outcomes among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction managed with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the GUIDE-IT trial, 894 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction were stratified according to a history of depression, and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to examine the association with outcomes. There were 140 patients (16%) in the overall cohort who had depression. They tended to be female (29% vs 46%, P < .001) and White (67% vs 53%, P = .002). There were no differences in GDMT rates at baseline or at 90 days; nor were there differences in target doses of these therapies achieved at 90 days (NS, all). amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels at all time points were similar between the cohorts (P > .05, all). After adjustment, depression was associated with all-cause hospitalizations (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.81, P < .01), cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.69, 95% confidence interval 1.07-2.68, P = .025), and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.03-2.32, P = .039). CONCLUSIONS: Depression impacts clinical outcomes in HF regardless of GDMT intensity and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. This finding underscores the need for a focus on mental health in parallel to achievement of optimal GDMT in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01685840, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01685840.

Intercountry Differences in Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and Outcomes Among Patients With Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine patterns of care and clinical outcomes among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the United States and Canada. BACKGROUND: In the GUIDE-IT (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment) trial, the use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide-guided titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) was compared with usual care alone for patients with HFrEF in the United States and Canada. It remains unknown whether the country of enrollment had an impact on outcomes or GDMT use. METHODS: A total of 894 patients at 45 sites across the United States and Canada with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were enrolled in the trial. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates stratified by country of enrollment were developed for the trial outcomes, and log-rank testing was compared between the groups. GDMT use and titration were also compared. RESULTS: U.S. patients were more likely to be younger, to be Black, to have higher body mass index, and to have histories of defibrillator placement or sleep apnea. Use of ß-blockers was significantly higher in Canada at baseline (99.3% vs. 94.0%; p = 0.01) and 6 months (99.0% vs. 94.1%; p = 0.04), and use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was higher in Canada at 6 months (68.3% vs. 55.1%; p = 0.01). Canadian patients were less likely to experience the primary study endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45 to 0.93; p = 0.01) due to decreased rates of HF hospitalization (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.86; p = 0.003). The differences in outcomes were driven by increased heart failure hospitalization among U.S. Black patients. CONCLUSIONS: In GUIDE-IT, patients with HFrEF in Canada were significantly less likely to be hospitalized for heart failure. Differences in GDMT use, along with differences in sociodemographics and care delivery structures, may contribute to these differences, highlighting the importance of increasing diversity in clinical trials. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840).

Effects of Atrial Fibrillation on Heart Failure Outcomes and NT-proBNP Levels in the GUIDE-IT Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) on cardiac biomarkers and outcomes in a trial population of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction treated with optimal guideline-directed medical therapy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of 894 patients in the Guiding Evidence-Based Therapy Using Biomarker-Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) trial (January 2013-July 2016). Patients were stratified by AF status and compared with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy use, longitudinal levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and outcomes including HF hospitalization and mortality. RESULTS: After adjustment, AF was associated with a significant increase in the risk of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.61; P=0.04) and HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P=.03) but with no difference in mortality during a median 15 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences in medication treatment between those with and those without AF. At 90 days, a higher proportion of patients with AF (89.4% vs 81.5%; P=.002) had an NT-proBNP level above 1000 pg/mL (to convert NT-proBNP values to pmol/L, multiply by 0.1182), and AF patients had higher NT-proBNP levels at all time points through 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Among patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, prevalent AF was associated with higher NT-proBNP concentrations through 2 years of follow-up and higher risk for HF hospitalization despite no substantial differences in medical therapy.

Relation of Cardiovascular Risk Factors to Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 (from the Yale COVID-19 Cardiovascular Registry).

Individuals with established cardiovascular disease or a high burden of cardiovascular risk factors may be particularly vulnerable to develop complications from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a prospective cohort study at a tertiary care center to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, new acute decompensated heart failure, venous thromboembolism, ventricular or atrial arrhythmia, pericardial effusion, or aborted cardiac arrest) among consecutively hospitalized adults with COVID-19, using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. The study population comprised 586 COVID-19 positive patients. Median age was 67 (IQR: 55 to 80) years, 47.4% were female, and 36.7% had cardiovascular disease. Considering risk factors, 60.2% had hypertension, 39.8% diabetes, and 38.6% hyperlipidemia. Eighty-two individuals (14.0%) died in-hospital, and 135 (23.0%) experienced MACE. In a model adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and laboratory findings, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.28 per 5 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.45), previous ventricular arrhythmia (OR, 18.97; 95% CI, 3.68 to 97.88), use of P2Y12-inhibitors (OR, 7.91; 95% CI, 1.64 to 38.17), higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.81: 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.78), lower albumin (OR, 0.64: 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.86), and higher troponin T (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.39 to 2.46) were associated with mortality (p <0.05). After adjustment for demographics, presentation, and laboratory findings, predictors of MACE were higher respiratory rates, altered mental status, and laboratory abnormalities, including higher troponin T (p <0.05). In conclusion, poor prognostic markers among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 included older age, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory failure, altered mental status, and higher troponin T concentrations.

2019 clinical trials in lipid lowering.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lipid-lowering therapies play a major role in reducing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This article reviews the most recent lipid-lowering therapy trials, many of which provide a unique opportunity to further reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and ASCVD risk on top of statin therapy, and in doing so further decrease the number of future major adverse cardiovascular events. RECENT FINDINGS: Although statin therapy has been the mainstay of treatment for lowering LDL-C levels for many years, many individuals require additional or alternative options for further reducing their risk. Trials on previously studied therapies, such as PCSK9 inhibitors, and new therapies, including inclisiran, bempedoic acid and icosapent ethyl demonstrate significant potential for further lowering of LDL-C levels and risk for events on top of maximally tolerated statin therapy with favourable side effect profiles. SUMMARY: As therapies for ASCVD prevention continue to emerge, clinicians will need to identify the appropriate treatment for individuals based on their estimated risk and risk-enhancing factors. When statin therapy is either not sufficient or patients do not tolerate adequate statin therapy, relying on newer therapies, such as PCSK9-inhibitors, inclisiran, bempedoic acid and icosapent ethyl, will be critical to maximize risk factor profiles to reduce adverse outcomes.

Harnessing mHealth technologies to increase physical activity and prevent cardiovascular disease.

Research into prevention of cardiovascular disease has increasingly focused on mobile health (mHealth) technologies and their efficacy in helping individuals adhere to heart-healthy recommendations, including daily physical activity levels. By including the use of mHealth technologies in the discussion of physical activity recommendations, clinicians empower patients to play an active daily role in modifying their cardiovascular risk-factor profile. In this review, we critically evaluate the mHealth and physical activity literature to determine how these tools may lower cardiovascular risk while providing real-time tracking, feedback, and motivation on physical activity levels. We analyze the various domains-including user knowledge, social support, behavioral change theory, and self-motivation-that potentially influence the effectiveness of smartphone applications to impact individual physical activity levels. In doing so, we hope to provide a thorough overview of the mHealth landscape, in addition to highlighting many of the administrative, reimbursement, and patient-privacy challenges of using these technologies in patient care. Finally, we propose a behavioral change model and checklist for clinicians to assist patients in utilizing mHealth technology to best achieve meaningful changes in daily physical activity levels.