Impact of the medical care act amendment on the medical malpractice litigation in Taiwan.

Medical malpractice leads to medical criminal liability and claims. The national data of medical criminal liabilities across various specializations, before and after the Medical Care Act amendment, was lacking in Taiwan. The aim of this study is to clarify the impact of the law amendment. A comprehensive retrospective analysis of medical crimes was conducted from January 2001 to December 2020 in Taiwan. The number of medical criminal litigation, defendants, people who plead guilty, conviction rate, and punishment sentences were analyzed. Additionally, the number of practicing physicians in the year was used as the baseline to determine the rate of the accused and guilty rate per 10,000 physician-years, respectively. From 2001 to 2020, there were 249 criminal litigations of medical professionals, which gave rise to 335 defendants. The proportion of defendants by specialization was 19.1% in internal medicine, 26.3% in surgery and orthopedics, 11.9% in obstetrics and gynecology, 3.3% in pediatrics, 25.7% in physicians (who were not related to the aforementioned 4 specializations), and 13.7% in non-physician staff. After the amendment to the Medical Care Act in 2017, the accused rates per 10,000 physician-years decreased significantly in aggregate and by specialization between 2016 and 2020; the guilty rate per 10,000 physician-years during 2016 to 2020 was the minimum, compared to the past. The amendment to the Medical Care Act in 2017 reduced the number of vexatious criminal proceedings. The amendment also reduced criminal liabilities by reducing the guilty rate during 2016 to 2020, compared to the previous period.

Utility of PREDICT-HF score in high-risk Asian heart failure patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the application of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice and the utility of PREDICT-HF score for outcome prediction in Asian heart failure patients with difference risk profiles. Methods: The TAROT-HF study was a multicenter, single-arm, observational study. Totally 1,187 outpatients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan were enrolled and categorized by: (1) high-risk group with ≥1 of the following three risk factors: old age (≥80 years), low baseline systolic blood pressure (<100 mmHg), and renal impairment (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73 m2), and (2) standard-risk group, those who did not have any risk factors. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the PREDICT-HF risk model. Results: A total of 305 (25.7%) patients matched the criteria for the high-risk group. The event rates of cardiovascular death or first unplanned heart failure hospitalization (HFH) among the overall population, high-risk, and standard-risk groups were 13.7, 24.9, and 10.8 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. The C statistics for the PREDICT-HF model in the overall cohort and high-risk group for cardiovascular death or first unplanned HFH at 2 years were 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.65-0.76), respectively. The permanent discontinuation rate among the high-risk patients was significantly higher than that among the standard-risk patients (8.3 vs. 2.5 per 100 patient-years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Real-world outcomes of the TAROT-HF study demonstrated that the PREDICT-HF model performed well in Asian HFrEF patients. Three easily detected clinical profiles of age, renal function, and systolic BP could help to identify patients at risk before initiating sacubitril/valsartan.

Clinical impacts of sacubitril/valsartan on patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been used in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could benefit the HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impacts of SAC/VAL on reverse cardiac remodelling in CRT-eligible and CRT-ineligible HFrEF patients with different QRS durations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TAROT-HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT-eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non-LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT-ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: -14.4% ± 25.9% vs. -9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT-eligible patients requires further investigation.

Different left ventricular remodelling patterns and clinical outcomes between non-ischaemic and ischaemic aetiologies in heart failure patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

AIMS: Although the beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) compared to enalapril was consistent across ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) groups, the PARADIGM-HF study did not analyse the effect of ventricular remodelling on patients with different aetiologies, which may affect clinical treatment outcomes. This study aimed to compare left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following SAC/VAL treatment and its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1576 patients were analysed. Patients were grouped by LVEF changes following SAC/VAL treatment for 8-month period. LVEF improvement ≥15% was defined as 'significant improvement', and <5% or worse was classified as 'lack of improvement'. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death and unplanned hospitalization for heart failure. Patients with NICM had lower baseline LVEF but improvement was significantly greater comparing to those with ICM (baseline 28.0 ± 7.7% vs. 30.1 ± 7.1%, P < 0.001, LVEF increase of 11.1 ± 12.6% vs. 6.7 ± 10.2%, P < 0.001). The effect of functional improvement of SAC/VAL on NICM patients showed bimodal distribution. Primary endpoints were inversely associated with LVEF changes in NICM patients: adjusted hazard ratio was 0.42 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31-0.58, P < 0.001] for NICM patients with significant improvement, and was 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.16, P < 0.001) for NICM patients but lack of improvement. Primary endpoints of ICM patients did not demonstrate an association with LVEF changes. CONCLUSION: Patients with NICM had higher degree of LVEF improvement than those with ICM following SAC/VAL treatment, and significant improvement of LVEF in NICM patients indicates favourable outcome.

Treatment with angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor for Taiwan heart failure patients: Rationale and baseline characteristics of the TAROT-HF study.

BACKGROUND: This study used a real-world database to investigate the prescription patterns of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) among Taiwanese patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: The Treatment with Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor fOr Taiwan Heart Failure patients (TAROT-HF) study is a principal investigator-initiated, multicenter, observational, retrospective study on Taiwanese HFrEF patients. A total of 1772 patients with HFrEF (mean age 62.5 years, 75.3% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 29.3%) who received Sac/Val at 10 hospitals between 2017 and 2018 were enrolled at the date of Sac/Val initiation. Among these patients, 585 (33%) initially received Sac/Val during acute decompensated heart failure (HF) hospitalization (TAROT-AHF arm), whereas 1187 (67%) initially received the same at the outpatient clinic (TAROT-CHF arm). RESULTS: A total of 1343 (75.8%) patients received an initial dose of 50 mg twice daily or fewer, whereas 422 (23.8%) received the standard initiation dose (100 mg twice daily). During outpatient Sac/Val initiation, the mean dosages were significantly higher than that following hospitalization (117 ± 55 mg vs 109 ± 57 mg; p = 0.014). Multivariate analysis identified younger age, higher systolic blood pressure, higher LVEF, prior use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, use of ivabradine, and a history of diabetes mellitus as independent factors for initiating a standard Sac/Val dose. Over a follow-up period of 18 months, incidences of cardiovascular death or first unplanned HF hospitalization were 18.69 and 33.11 per 100-person years for the TAROT-CHF and TAROT-AHF arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: The TAROT-HF study provided an opportunity to describe the clinical features of patients with HFrEF who received Sac/Val, assess the real-world utilization and efficacy of Sac/Val, and compare these patients with those included in prior registries.

The association between ivabradine and adverse cardiovascular events in acute decompensated HFrEF patients.

AIMS: Ivabradine has been used in patients who have chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant sinus heart rate ≥70 bpm. This administration for acute HFrEF remains a concern. This study used a real-world multicentre database to investigate the effects of ivabradine among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF before discharge. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study retrospectively identified patients with acute decompensated HFrEF who were administered ivabradine at discharge from two multicentre HF databases. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders. Cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and recurrent HF rehospitalization risks were then compared between those with and without ivabradine treatment. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 876 patients (age, 60.7 ± 14.6 years; female, 23.2%; left ventricular ejection fraction, 28.2% ± 7.8%; and heart rate at discharge, 84.3 ± 13.8 bpm) were included in the final analysis, including 292 and 584 patients with and without ivabradine treatment at discharge, respectively. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. At 1 year follow-up, patients in the ivabradine group had significantly lower heart rates (77.6 ± 14.7 vs. 81.1 ± 16.3 bpm; P = 0.005) and lower HF severity symptoms (New York Heart Association Functional class, 2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.3 ± 0.9; P < 0.001) than those from the non-ivabradine group. Ivabradine users had significantly lower risks of 1 year cardiovascular mortality (5.8 vs. 12.2 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), all-cause mortality (7.2 vs. 14.0 per 100-person year; P = 0.003), and total HF rehospitalization (42.3 vs. 72.6 per 100-person year; P < 0.001) than non-ivabradine users. Following multivariate analysis, the predischarge prescription of ivabradine remained independently associated with lower 1 year all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.74; P = 0.002) and cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.72; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The current study findings suggest that ivabradine treatment is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and HF rehospitalization within 1 year among patients with acute decompensated HFrEF in real-world populations.

The evolution of guideline-directed medical therapy among decompensated HFrEF patients in sacubitril/valsartan era: Medical expenses and clinical effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years, new evolution in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) contributes to clinical benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The additional medical expenditure may be a concern due to the current financial constraint. This study aimed to investigate the medical costs and clinical effectiveness of contemporary GDMT in recently hospitalized HFrEF patients. METHODS: Acutely decompensated hospitalized HFrEF patients from two multicenter cohorts of different periods were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching was performed to adjust the baseline characteristics. Annual medication costs, risks of mortality, and recurrent heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) were compared. RESULTS: Following 1:2 propensity score matching, there were 426 patients from the 2017-2018 cohort using sacubitril/valsartan, while 852 patients from 2013 to 2014 did not use so at discharge. Baseline characteristics were similar, whereas the sacubitril/valsartan users were more likely to receive beta-blockers, ivabradine and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists at discharge (79.3% vs 60.4%, 23.2% vs 0%, and 64.1% vs 49.8%, p < 0.001). The 2017-2018 cohort produced more medication costs by 1277 United States dollar (USD) per person per year, while it resulted in lower rates of HFH and all-cause mortality (10.3 vs 20.3 and 48.8 vs 79.9 per 100 person-year, p < 0.001). Costs of preventing a mortality event and a HFH event with contemporary treatments were 15 758 USD (95% confidence interval [CI] 10 436-29 244) and 5317 USD (95% CI 3388-10 098), respectively. CONCLUSION: The higher adoption of GDMT was associated with greater medical expenses but better clinical outcomes in recently decompensated HFrEF patients.

Combination of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

AIMS: Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF.

Everolimus-Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in Real World Practice - A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents are widely used in coronary artery intervention. However, vessel caging and very late thrombotic events are of persistent and substantial concern. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) were developed to deliver vascular reparative therapy, by eliminating permanent mechanical restraint. However, data regarding its clinical performance is lacking. METHODS: After the BVS implantation procedure received national approval in May 2014, patients receiving BVS implantation until November 2014 in National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH) were enrolled. Clinical variables, angiographic data, procedural details, and follow-up information were collected and compared with those receiving BVS at NTUH as part of the global ABSORB EXTEND trial. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients (38 target vessels) with 48 BVS implanted after approval were enrolled, as the "real-world practice" group. Data of the 34 patients (34 target vessels) with 37 BVS implanted in the ABSORB EXTEND trial were also obtained. Differences in lesion complexity (0% type B2/C lesion in ABSORB EXTEND, versus 23.7% in real-world, p = 0.007) and lesion length (20.9 ± 6.1 mm in ABSORB EXTEND, versus 29.5 ± 15.9 mm in real-world, p = 0.008) were noted. The ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization after an average of 732 days follow-up was 11.8% in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. However, there was no ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), no scaffold thrombosis, no myocardial infarction (MI), and no patients passed during the follow-up period. In real-world patients, there is 5.3% of MI, 2.6% ischemia-driven TLR, and 2.6% of non-fatal probable scaffold thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BVS in real-world practice is feasible, with clinical outcomes comparable to those in the ABSORB EXTEND trial.

Early detection of myocardial infarction following blunt chest trauma by computed tomography: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cardiac trauma encompasses a wide range of clinical entities, including myocardial contusion, cardiac rupture, valve avulsion, pericardial injuries, arrhythmia, and even myocardial infarction. Acute myocardial infarction due to coronary artery dissection after blunt chest trauma is rare and may be life threatening. Differential diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction from cardiac contusion at this setting is not easy. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we demonstrated a case of blunt chest trauma, with computed tomography detected myocardium enhancement defect early at emergency department. Under the impression of acute myocardial infarction, emergent coronary angiography revealed left anterior descending artery occlusion. Revascularization was performed and coronary artery dissection was found after thrombus aspiration. Finally, the patient survived after coronary stenting. CONCLUSION: Perfusion defects of myocardium enhancement on CT after blunt chest trauma can be very helpful to suggest myocardial infarction and facilitate the decision making of emergent procedure. This valuable sign should not be missed during the initial interpretation.