Fonarow, Gregg C.

Background Whereas insurance status has been previously associated with care patterns, little is currently known about the association between Medicaid insurance and the clinical characteristics, treatment, or outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ). Methods and Results We used data from adults with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF ( ORBIT ‐ AF ), a national outpatient registry conducted at 176 community, multispecialty sites. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients prescribed any oral anticoagulation ( OAC ; warfarin or novel oral anticoagulants [ NOAC ]). Secondary outcomes of interest included the proportion of patients prescribed NOAC s (dabigatran or rivaroxaban); time in therapeutic range ( TTR ) for warfarin users, all‐cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleed. Of 10 133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) had Medicaid insurance. Medicaid patients were similarly likely to receive OAC at baseline (72.8% vs 76.3%; unadjusted P =0.079), but less likely to receive NOAC at baseline or follow‐up (12.1% vs 16.3%; unadjusted P =0.019). After risk adjustment, Medicaid status was associated with lower use of OAC at baseline among patients with high stroke risk (odds ratio [ OR ]=0.68; 95% CI =0.49, 0.94), but was not associated with OAC use overall ( OR =0.82; 95% CI =0.61, 1.09). Among warfarin users, median TTR was lower among Medicaid patients (60% vs 68%; P <0.0001; adjusted TTR difference, −2.9; 95% CI =−5.7, −0.2; P =0.04). Use of an NOAC over 2 years of follow‐up was not statistically different by insurance. Compared with non‐Medicaid patients, Medicaid patients had higher unadjusted rates of mortality, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding; however, these differences were attenuated following adjustment for clinical characteristics. Conclusions In a contemporary AF cohort, use of OAC overall and use of NOAC s were not significantly lower among Medicaid patients relative to others. However, among warfarin users, Medicaid patients spent less time in therapeutic range compared with those with other forms of insurance.

ABSTRACTFibrinolytic therapy is still used in patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when the primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be provided in a timely fashion. Management strategies and outcomes in transferred fibrinolytic‐treated STEMI patients have not been well assessed in real‐world settings. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2012, we identified 18 814 patients with STEMI who received fibrinolytic therapy and were transferred to a different facility within 24 hours. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding requiring transfusion, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), length of stay, and cost. The patients were divided into 3 groups: those who received medical therapy alone (n = 853; 4.5%), those who underwent coronary artery angiography without revascularization (n = 2573; 13.7%), and those who underwent coronary artery angiography with revascularization (n = 15 388; 81.8%). Rates of in‐hospital mortality among the groups were 20% vs 6.6% vs 2.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); ICH was 8.5% vs 1.1% vs 0.6%, respectively (P < 0.001); and gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.1% vs 0.4% vs 0.4%, respectively (P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and ICH as the independent predictors of not performing coronary artery angiography and/or revascularization in patients with STEMI initially treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The majority of STEMI patients transferred after receiving fibrinolytic therapy undergo coronary angiography. However, notable numbers of patients do not receive revascularization, especially patients with cardiogenic shock and following a cardiac arrest.

Background— Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. Methods and Results— We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.92; P =0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–0.87 P <0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival ( P =0.79). Conclusions— Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPatients with sinus node dysfunction (SND) have increased risk of atrial tachyarrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF). To date, treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with SND and AF have not been well described.HypothesisPatients with SND and AF have higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.MethodsSinus node dysfunction was defined clinically, based on treating physician. Treatment patterns were described and logistic regression analysis performed to assess outcomes.ResultsOverall, 1710 (17.7%) out of 9631 patients had SND at enrollment. Patients with SND and AF had increased comorbid medical illnesses, more severe symptoms (European Heart Rhythm Association class IV: 17.5% vs 13.9%; P = 0.0007), and poorer quality of life (median 12‐month Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life score: 79.6 vs 85.2; P = 0.0008). There were no differences in AF management strategy between patients with SND and those without (rate control, 69.7% vs 67.7%; rhythm control, 30.0% vs 32.0%; P = 0.11). After adjustment, patients with SND were more likely than those without SND to progress from paroxysmal AF at baseline to persistent or permanent AF at any follow‐up, or persistent AF at baseline to permanent AF at any follow‐up (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.01‐1.49, P = 0.035). However, there was no association between SND and major risk‐adjusted outcomes.ConclusionsSinus node dysfunction is present in 1 of 6 patients with AF and is associated with increased comorbidities and higher symptom burden. However, SND is not associated with an increase in major risk‐adjusted outcomes.

Background Most patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) require rate control; however, the optimal target heart rate remains under debate. We aimed to assess rate control and subsequent outcomes among patients with permanent AF . Methods and Results We studied 2812 US outpatients with permanent AF in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation. Resting heart rate was measured longitudinally and used as a time‐dependent covariate in multivariable Cox models of all‐cause and cause‐specific mortality during a median follow‐up of 24 months. At baseline, 7.4% (n=207) had resting heart rate <60 beats per minute (bpm), 62% (n=1755) 60 to 79 bpm, 29% (n=817) 80 to 109 bpm, and 1.2% (n=33) ≥110 bpm. Groups did not differ by age, previous cerebrovascular disease, heart failure status, CHA 2 DS 2 ‐ VAS c scores, renal function, or left ventricular function. There were significant differences in race ( P =0.001), sinus node dysfunction ( P =0.004), and treatment with calcium‐channel blockers ( P =0.006) and anticoagulation ( P =0.009). In analyses of continuous heart rates, lower heart rate ≤65 bpm was associated with higher all‐cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [ HR ], 1.15 per 5‐bpm decrease; 95% CI , 1.01 to 1.32; P =0.04). Similarly, increasing heart rate >65 bpm was associated with higher all‐cause mortality (adjusted HR , 1.10 per 5‐bpm increase; 95% CI , 1.05 to 1.15; P <0.0001). This relationship was consistent across endpoints and in a broader sensitivity analysis of permanent and nonpermanent AF patients. Conclusions Among patients with permanent AF , there is a J‐shaped relationship between heart rate and mortality. These data support current guideline recommendations, and clinical trials are warranted to determine optimal rate control. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://clinicaltrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.