Elgendy, Islam Y.

Introduction: There is paucity of data on the relationship between hospital procedural volume and outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the past decade. Methods: We queried the National Inpatient Sample database (2010-2016) for hospitalizations undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. Hospitals were divided into 3 groups: low-volume (<36 primary PCI/ year), moderate-volume (36-72 primary PCI/year) and high-volume (>72 primary PCI/ year). The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: The analysis included 694,505 hospitalizations for primary PCI. There were 329,878 (47.5%) primary PCI procedures performed at low-volume hospitals, 224,317 (32.3%) at moderate-volume, and 140,223 (20.2%) at high-volume hospitals. Compared with high-volume hospitals, low-volume hospitals were associated with higher in-hospital mortality in the unadjusted model (5.3% vs. 4.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval-CI 1.02-1.18, p=0.01) and on multivariable analysis (adjusted-OR 1.15; 95%CI 1.04-1.27, p=0.01). There was no difference between moderate-volume and high-volume hospital in unadjusted analysis (5.1% vs. 4.8%, OR 1.07; 95%CI 0.99-1.15, p=0.11) and on multivariable analysis (adjusted-OR 1.08; 95%CI 0.97-1.20, p=0.17). Conclusions: This nationwide analysis showed that low-volume hospitals are associated with higher in-hospital mortality after primary PCI compared with high-volume hospitals even in recent years. The current threshold set by national guidelines for primary PCI hospitals remains valid in contemporary practice.

Background Elderly patients have a higher burden of comorbidities that influence clinical outcomes. We aimed to compare in‐hospital outcomes in patients ≥80 years old to younger patients, and to determine the factors associated with increased risk of major adverse events (MAE) after left atrial appendage closure. Methods and Results The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify discharges after left atrial appendage closure between October 2015 and December 2018. The primary outcome was in‐hospital MAE defined as the composite of postprocedural bleeding, vascular and cardiac complications, acute kidney injury, stroke, and death. A total of 6779 hospitalizations were identified, of which, 2371 (35%) were ≥80 years old and 4408 (65%) were <80 years old. Patients ≥80 years old experienced a higher rate of MAE compared with those aged <80 years old (6.0% versus 4.6%, P =0.01), and this difference was driven by a numerically higher rate of cardiac complications (2.4% versus 1.8%, P =0.09) and death (0.3% versus 0.1%, P =0.05) among individuals ≥80 years old. In patients ≥80 years old, higher odds of in‐hospital MAE were observed in women (1.61‐fold), and those with preprocedural congestive heart failure (≈2‐fold), diabetes (≈1.5‐fold), renal disease (≈2.6‐fold), anemia (≈2.7‐fold), and dementia (≈5‐fold). In patients <80 years old, a higher risk of in‐hospital MAE was encountered among women (≈1.4‐fold) and those with diabetes (≈1.3‐fold), renal disease (≈2.6‐fold), anemia (≈2‐fold), and dyslipidemia (≈1.2‐fold). Conclusions Patients ≥80 years old had higher rates of in‐hospital MAE compared with patients aged <80 years old. Female sex and the presence of heart failure, diabetes, renal disease, and anemia were factors associated with in‐hospital MAE among both groups.

Objective This manuscript aims to explore the impact of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on in-hospital complication rates after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Methods The US National Inpatient Sample was used to identify hospitalisations for LAAC between 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2018. These patients were stratified by race/ethnicity and quartiles of median neighbourhood income. The primary outcome was the occurrence of in-hospital major adverse events, defined as a composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac and vascular complications, acute kidney injury and ischaemic stroke. Results Of 6478 unweighted hospitalisations for LAAC, 58% were male and patients of black, Hispanic and ‘other’ race/ethnicity each comprised approximately 5% of the cohort. Adjusted by the older Americans population, the estimated number of LAAC procedures was 69.2/100 000 for white individuals, as compared with 29.5/100 000 for blacks, 47.2/100 000 for Hispanics and 40.7/100 000 for individuals of ‘other’ race/ethnicity. Black patients were ~5 years younger but had a higher comorbidity burden. The primary outcome occurred in 5% of patients and differed significantly between racial/ethnic groups (p<0.001) but not across neighbourhood income quartiles (p=0.88). After multilevel modelling, the overall rate of in-hospital major adverse events was higher in black patients as compared with whites (OR: 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.10, p<0.001); however, the incidence of acute kidney injury was higher in Hispanics (OR: 2.19, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.17, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in adjusted overall in-hospital complication rates between income quartiles. Conclusion In this study assessing racial/ethnic disparities in patients undergoing LAAC, minorities are under-represented, specifically patients of black race/ethnicity. Compared with whites, black patients had higher comorbidity burden and higher rates of in-hospital complications. Lower socioeconomic status was not associated with complication rates.

AbstractDespite the widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention and modern antithrombotic therapy, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the leading cause of death in the United States and remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain high-risk patients present a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. The widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention in addition to modern antithrombotic therapy has resulted in substantial improvement in the short- and long-term prognosis following STEMI. In this review, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the state-of-the-art treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, focusing on cardiogenic shock, current treatment and controversies, cardiac arrest, and diagnosis and treatment of mechanical complications, as well as multivessel and left main-related STEMI.

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk. Data are limited regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of ACS in patients with IBD. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with IBD admitted for ACS in the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2005 to 2015 was conducted. We analyzed trends in IBD-ACS admissions and mortality, differences in risk profiles, management strategies, and in-hospital mortality between IBD-ACS and non-IBD ACS and between ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD). Results We studied 6,872,415 non-IBD ACS and 24,220 IBD-ACS hospitalizations (53% with CD). During the study period, the number of hospitalizations for IBD-ACS increased, particularly those related to CD. Compared with non-IBD ACS, patients with IBD-ACS had a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and similar rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower with IBD-ACS (3.9%) compared with non-IBD ACS (5.3%; odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.96; P = 0.011) and was stable between 2005 and 2015. Risk factors, ACS management strategies, and mortality were similar between CD and UC. Coagulopathy, weight loss, and gastrointestinal bleeding were more frequent in IBD-ACS and were strong independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions Hospitalizations for ACS in patients with IBD increased in recent years but death rates were stable. The ACS-related risk profiles and mortality were modestly favorable with IBD-ACS than with non-IBD ACS and were similar between CD and UC. Complications more frequently associated with IBD were strongly associated with mortality. These findings indicate that aggressive management of IBD and ACS comorbidities is required to improve outcomes.

AbstractObjectiveThe authors aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT).BackgroundThe role of CDT in the management of DVT is evolving. Data on CDT versus anticoagulation alone in acute DVT is sparse.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies that compared CDT to anticoagulation alone in patients with acute DVT.ResultsWe included 11 studies (four randomized control trials [RCTs] and seven observational studies) with a total of 8,737 patients. During hospital stay, patients who received CDT had higher odds of major bleeding (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.07, 1.98], p = .02), blood transfusion (10.8% vs. 6.2%; OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.52, 2.13], p < .001), and thromboembolism (15.5% vs. 10%; OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.47, 1.91], p < .001) compared with anticoagulation alone. At 6‐month follow‐up, patients who received CDT had higher venous patency (71.1% vs. 37.7%; OR 5.49, 95% CI [2.63, 11.5], p < .001) and lower postthrombotic syndrome (PTS; 27% vs. 40.7%; OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86], p = .02). During a mean follow‐up duration of 30.5 ± 28 months, CDT group continued to have higher venous patency (79.6% vs. 71.8%; OR 3.79, 95% CI [1.54, 9.32], p = .004) and lower PTS (44.7% vs. 50.5%; OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.23, 0.78], p = .006), but no difference in thromboembolism.ConclusionCompared with anticoagulation alone, CDT for patients with acute DVT was associated with a higher risk of complications, but a higher rate of venous patency and lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome at 2.5 years follow‐up.