Roger, Véronique L.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL ‐C) to identify untreated patients with LDL ‐C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid‐lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL ‐C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL ‐C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart‐documented LDL ‐C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non–college graduates (all P <0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P =0.0034), a high‐intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P =0.016), nonstatin lipid‐lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P =0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL ‐C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P <0.0001) than patients with prior LDL ‐C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL ‐C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL ‐C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL ‐C testing is associated with higher‐intensity lipid‐lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL ‐C levels.

Background Aortic syndromes (ASs), including aortic dissection, intramural hematoma, and penetrating aortic ulcer, carry significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. However, the contemporary incidence and outcomes of AS are unknown. Methods and Results We used the Rochester Epidemiology Project record linkage system to identify all Olmsted County, MN, residents with AS (1995–2015). Diagnostic imaging, medical records, and death certificates were reviewed to confirm the diagnosis and AS subtype. Age- and sex-adjusted incidence rates were estimated using annual county-level census data. Survival for patients with AS was compared with age- and sex-matched controls using Cox regression to adjust for comorbid conditions. We identified 133 patients with AS (77, aortic dissection; 21, intramural hematoma; and 35, penetrating aortic ulcer). Average age was 71.8 years (SD=14.1), and 57% were men. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence was 7.7 per 100 000 person-years, was higher for men than women (10.2 versus 5.7 per 100 000 person-years), and increased with age. Among subtypes, the incidence of aortic dissection was highest (4.4 per 100 000 person-years), whereas the incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer and intramural hematoma was lower (2.1 and 1.2 per 100 000 person-years). Overall, the incidence of AS was stable over time ( P trend=0.33), although the incidence of penetrating aortic ulcer seemed to increase from 0.6 to 2.6 per 100 000 person-years ( P =0.008) with variability over the study interval. Patients with AS had more than twice the mortality rate at 5, 10, and 20 years when compared with population-based controls (5-, 10-, and 20-year mortality 39%, 57%, and 91% versus 18%, 41%, and 66%; overall adjusted mortality hazards ratio=2.1; P <0.001). Survival was lower than expected up to 90 days after AS diagnosis and did not differ significantly by subtype or by 5-year strata of diagnosis. Conclusions Overall, the incidence of aortic dissection and intramural hematoma has remained stable since 1995, despite the decline noted for other cardiovascular disease. AS confers increased early and long-term mortality that has not changed. These data highlight the need to improve long-term care to impact the prognosis of this patient group.

Background As the population with cardiovascular disease ages, geriatric conditions are of increasing relevance. A possible geriatric prognostic indicator may be a fall risk score, which is mandated by The Joint Commission to be measured on all hospitalized patients. The prognostic value of a fall risk score on outcomes after dismissal is not well known. Thus, we aimed to determine whether a fall risk score is associated with death and hospital readmissions in patients with a recent incident cardiovascular disease event. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, Olmsted County, MN patients with incident heart failure, myocardial infarction, or atrial fibrillation between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, who were hospitalized within 180 days after the event were studied. Fall risk was measured by the Hendrich II fall risk model. Patients were followed for death or readmission within 30 days or 1 year. Among 2456 hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease (549 heart failure, 784 myocardial infarction, 1123 atrial fibrillation; mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 55% men), the fall risk score was high in 22% of patients and moderate in 38%. The risk of death was increased if the fall risk score was increased, independent of age and comorbidities (moderate hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09–2.08; high hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.52–4.85). Similarly, the risk of 30-day readmissions was substantially increased with a greater fall risk score (moderate hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.62; high hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23–2.15). Results were similar for readmissions within 1 year. Conclusions More than half of hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease have an elevated fall risk score, which is associated with an increased risk in readmissions and death. These results delineate an approach for risk stratification and management that may prevent readmissions and improve survival.

Background Ideal cardiovascular health metrics (defined by the American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 [LS7]) are suboptimal among blacks, which results in high risk of cardiovascular disease. We examined the association of multiple stressors with LS7 components among blacks. Methods and Results Using a community‐based cohort of blacks (N=4383), we examined associations of chronic stress, minor stressors, major life events, and a cumulative stress score with LS7 components (smoking, diet, physical activity, body mass index, blood pressure, total cholesterol, and fasting plasma glucose) and an LS7 composite score. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the odds of achieving intermediate/ideal levels of cardiovascular health adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and biomedical factors. The LS7 components with the lowest percentages of intermediate/ideal cardiovascular health levels were diet (39%), body mass index (47%), and physical activity (51%). Higher chronic, minor, and cumulative stress scores were associated with decreased odds (odds ratio [OR]) of achieving intermediate/ideal levels for smoking (OR [95% confidence interval], 0.80 [0.73–0.88], 0.84 [0.75–0.94], and 0.81 [0.74–0.90], respectively). Participants with more major life events had decreased odds of achieving intermediate/ideal levels for smoking (OR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.92) and fasting plasma glucose (OR, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–0.98). Those with higher scores for minor stressors and major life events were less likely to achieve intermediate or ideal LS7 composite scores (OR [95% confidence interval], 0.89 [0.81–0.97] and 0.91 [0.84–0.98], respectively). Conclusions Blacks with higher levels of multiple stress measures are less likely to achieve intermediate or ideal levels of overall cardiovascular health (LS7 composite score), specific behaviors (smoking), and biological factors (fasting plasma glucose).

Background Perceived social isolation has been shown to have a negative impact on health outcomes, particularly among older adults. However, these relationships have not been fully examined among patients with heart failure. Methods and Results Residents from 11 southeast Minnesota counties with a first‐ever International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD‐9 ) code 428 for heart failure between January 1, 2013, and March 31, 2015 (N=3867), were prospectively surveyed to measure perceived social isolation. A total of 2003 patients returned the survey (response rate, 52%); 1681 patients completed all questions and were retained for analysis. Among these patients (53% men; mean age, 73 years), ≈19% (n=312) had moderate perceived social isolation and 6% (n=108) had high perceived social isolation. After adjustment, patients reporting moderate perceived social isolation did not have an increased risk of death, hospitalizations, or emergency department visits compared with patients reporting low perceived social isolation; however, patients reporting high perceived social isolation had >3.5 times increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 3.74; 95% confidence interval [ CI ], 1.82–7.70), 68% increased risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI , 1.18–2.39), and 57% increased risk of emergency department visits (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI , 1.09–2.27). Compared with patients who self‐reported low perceived social isolation, patients reporting moderate perceived social isolation had a 16% increased risk of outpatient visits (rate ratio, 1.16; 95% CI , 1.03–1.31), whereas those reporting high perceived social isolation had a 26% increased risk (rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI , 1.04–1.53). Conclusions In patients with heart failure, greater perceived social isolation is associated with an increased risk of death and healthcare use. Assessing perceived social isolation during the clinical encounter with a brief screening tool may help identify patients with heart failure at greater risk of poor outcomes.

Background Current statin use and symptoms among older adults in routine community practice have not been well characterized since the release of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline. Methods and Results We compared statin use and dosing between adults >75 and ≤75 years old who were eligible for primary or secondary prevention statin use without considering guideline‐recommended age criteria. The patients were treated at 138 US practices in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) registry in 2015. Patient surveys also evaluated reported symptoms while taking statins. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the association between older age and statin use and dosing. Among 6717 people enrolled, 1704 (25%) were >75 years old. For primary prevention, use of any statin or high‐dose statin did not vary by age group: any statin, 62.6% in those >75 years old versus 63.1% in those ≤75 years old ( P =0.83); high‐dose statin, 10.2% versus 12.3% in the same groups ( P =0.14). For secondary prevention, older patients were slightly less likely to receive any statin (80.1% versus 84.2% [ P =0.003]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.01 [ P =0.06]), but were much less likely to receive a high‐intensity statin (23.5% versus 36.2% [ P <0.0001]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–0.65 [ P =0.0001]). Among current statin users, older patients were slightly less likely to report any symptoms (41.3% versus 46.6%; P =0.003) or myalgias (27.3% versus 33.3%; P <0.001). Conclusions Overall use of statins was similar for primary prevention in those aged >75 years versus younger patients, yet older patients were less likely to receive high‐intensity statins for secondary prevention. Statins appear to be similarly tolerated in older and younger adults.