Tang, Fengming

Background: An obesity paradox, with better long-term survival in obese patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), has been well described. The association between obesity and health status outcomes after PCI is unknown. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 3,281 PCI patients in a 10-center observational cohort study and categorized their body mass index (BMI) into normal (18.5 to <25), overweight (25 to <30), obese (30 to <35) and morbidly obese (≥ 35).Generalized linear models were used to describe the association between BMI and health status measures at 6 & 12 months, after adjusting for baseline characteristics and health status scores. Health status outcomes included; Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ] Angina Frequency (AF), and Quality of Life (QL) scores, as well as the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (EQ-5D VAS). Interaction with time was not significant, so an estimate of the average benefit over time was generated. Results: The distribution of patients’ BMI revealed that 17% were normal, 35% overweight, 28% obese and 20% morbidly obese. Compared with normal weight patients, morbidly obese individuals were younger (mean 60.8 yr vs. 67.9 yr) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension and heart failure. They underwent radial artery access (12.0% vs. 7.0%) and drug eluting stent implantation (80.4% vs. 76.0%) more frequently. Unadjusted changes in scores were lower (worse) among morbidly obese as compared with normal weight patients for SAQ AF (mean difference [MD] -1.52; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -3.05, -0.02), SAQ QL (MD -2.51; CI -4.48, -0.54), and EQ-5D VAS (MD -5.74;CI -7.52, -3.96). After adjustment, these differences were no longer significantly different for SAQ AF and SAQ QL (figure), although EQ-5D VAS scores remained lower among obese and morbidly obese patients. Conclusion: The overall health status was mildly worse among obese and morbidly obese individuals after PCI, but the benefits of PCI on patients’ disease-specific health status were similar across weight categories. This suggests that PCI is equally effective in improving angina and disease-specific quality of life, independent of patients’ weight.

Background: While lack of insurance is known to be associated with worse outcomes after myocardial infarction (MI), it is unknown whether health insurance status is associated with rates of non-elective hospitalizations after MI. Methods: Using data on 3571 U.S. MI patients enrolled between April 2005 to December 2008 in the 24-center, prospective TRIUMPH registry, we examined the association between being insured (reference), underinsured, and uninsured on rates of non-elective readmissions (all-cause) in the 1 st year following MI. Insurance status was obtained from medical records, and underinsurance was defined as those patients with insurance but with financial concerns about accessing care from patient interviews. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models were used to adjust for site, demographics, MI severity, risk factors, socio-economic, and psychological factors. Results: A total of 2269 (63.5%) patients were insured; 650 (18.2%) were underinsured; and 652 (18.3%) were uninsured. Emergency readmissions were highest for uninsured patients (25.0%), followed by the underinsured (21.8%), and lowest in insured patients (19.5%) (P<.001). After multivariable adjustment, uninsured patients had significantly higher rates of emergency readmission (adjusted RR, 1.52 [95% CI: 1.22-1.90] while underinsured patients did not (adjusted RR, 0.99 [95% CI: 0.81-1.21]) (Figure). Conclusions: Uninsured patients had a significantly higher adjusted risk of non-elective readmissions after MI, while underinsured patients did not. Future studies are needed to determine if providing even modest insurance coverage to the uninsured can minimize readmission rates.

Background: While concerns about the safety and procedural success of radial, as opposed to femoral, access for PCI have largely been abated, the association of radial access with patients’ health status recovery has not been explored. To address this gap in knowledge, we compared the symptoms, physical function and quality of life 1 year after PCI in patients treated with radial, as compared with femoral, access. Methods: This is a 10-center study of PCI, in whom 48 of 139 (35%) interventionalists used both radial and femoral approaches between 2009-2010. A total 2628 patients without prior CABG were interviewed and followed for one year. The previously validated Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) was used to assess disease-specific health status and the EQ-5D was used to quantify generic quality of life. Clinical characteristics and health status outcomes were compared between 296 radial and 2332 femoral PCI procedures. Results: Radial access was used in 11.2% of patients. No demographic (age, gender, race) or clinical factors (e.g. BMI, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, renal disease or prior cardiac history) were associated with radial use, except for an increased use among those with PAD (10.5% radial vs. 6.8% femoral, p=0.022) but reduced use among those with prior PCI (38.3% vs. 32.1%, p=0.037). There was no difference in health status outcomes based on SAQ angina frequency and quality of life, or the EQ-5D at baseline, 6 months or one year (table). Conclusion: In this multi-center observational registry, there was no association of radial access with long-term health status outcomes. These data suggest that there are no offsetting concerns about patients’ long-term health status benefits to counterbalance the peri-procedural safety benefits of a radial approach.

Delayed contact with the medical system may lead to worse patient outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), particularly ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We examined the effect of previously unstudied aspects of patients’ characteristics on delays to presentation, including health status, depressive symptoms, and socioeconomic status. Within the Translational Research Investigating Underlying disparities in acute Myocardial infarction Patients’ Health status (TRIUMPH) study, we examined predictors of delays to hospital presentation in 1,476 patients with AMI from 26 sites using multivariable hierarchical ordinal models. Time from symptom onset to hospital presentation was categorized as ≤2 hours, >2 to 6 hours, and >6 hours. Time to hospital presentation was ≤2 hours in 540 (36.6%) patients, between 2– 6 hours in 354 (24.0%) patients, and >6 hours in 582 (39.4%) patients. Factors associated with longer delays to presentation included frequent angina (compared to no angina: daily angina, Odds Ratio [OR] of 3.48 [95% CI: 1.53–7.88]; weekly angina, 2.46 [1.64 –3.67]; and monthly angina, 1.26 [0.96 –1.64]; p for trend<.001), presentation during weekday work hours (8am to 5pm) (compared to weekend: weekday, 1.40 [1.06, 1.85]; weeknight, 1.15 [0.85,1.54]; p for trend = 0.05), cost barriers (1.39 [1.05 to 1.85]; p=0.02), and no healthcare insurance (1.56 [1.15–2.12]; p=0.005). In contrast, patients with STEMI (0.55 [0.43– 0.70]; p<.001), prior coronary revascularization (0.67 [0.48 – 0.92]; p=0.01) and prior AMI (0.68 [0.48 – 0.97]; p=0.03) were more likely to present earlier. No relationship was found for depression, educational level, social support, or marital status. More frequent angina, cost barriers, no healthcare insurance, and time of day are associated with longer delays to hospital presentation, while those with prior AMIs and coronary revascularization were more likely to present earlier. Efforts to reduce delays should address patient issues related to health status (like angina), cost burden, and healthcare access.

Background— Clinical trials have shown that statin therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), even among patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels <100 mg/dL. We sought to determine the extent to which patients with obstructive CAD in routine outpatient care are treated with statins, nonstatins, or no lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results— Within the American College of Cardiology's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) outpatient registry, we examined rates of treatment with statin and nonstatin medications in 38 775 outpatients with obstructive CAD (history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) and without documented contraindications to statin therapy. Among these patients, 30 160 (77.8%) were prescribed statins, 2042 (5.3%) were treated only with nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and 6573 (17.0%) were untreated. Lack of medical insurance was associated with no statin treatment, and male sex, coexisting hypertension, and a recent coronary revascularization were associated with statin treatment. Among those not on any lipid-lowering therapy, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were available for 51.2% (3365/6573). Among these untreated patients, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were <100 mg/dL in 1794 patients (53.3%) and ≥100 mg/dL in 1571 patients (46.7%). Conclusions— Despite robust clinical trial evidence, a substantial number of patients with obstructive CAD remain untreated with statins. A small proportion were treated with nonstatin therapy, and 1 in 6 patients was simply untreated; half of the untreated patients had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values <100 mg/dL. These findings illustrate important opportunities to improve lipid management in outpatients with obstructive CAD.