Lopez, Keila N

Background Mortality in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) is strongly driven by disease complexity. Social determinants of health (SDOH) influence adult CHD (ACHD) health outcomes but their impact on mortality is unclear. This study examined the influence of clinical factors and SDOH on all‐cause mortality in patients with ACHD. Methods Single‐center retrospective cohort study of patients with ACHD in the Mayo ACHD Registry who had a verifiable residential address between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2023. Clinical and SDOH indicators were extracted, including insurance type, language, rural–urban commuting area code, and a housing‐based socioeconomic index, an individual‐level measure of socioeconomic status derived from 4 objective housing characteristics and categorized into quartiles (Q1–Q4). Cox proportional‐hazards models were fitted to evaluate associations with mortality, incorporating CHD severity, arrhythmias, SDOH indicators, and other comorbidities. County of residence was included as a random effect, and model discrimination was assessed using the concordance statistic. Results Among 6134 patients with ACHD, the mean age was 38±16 years; 51% were male; 78.7% were White and 44.9% had rural residence. Independent predictors of mortality included cyanotic CHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 5.70 [95% CI, 2.90–11.23]), Fontan palliation (aHR, 4.98 [95% CI, 2.56–9.70]), ventricular tachycardia (aHR, 1.71 [95% CI, 1.16–2.52]), older age at first visit (aHR, 1.05 per year [95% CI, 1.04–1.05]), male sex (aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.03–1.39]), public insurance (aHR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.35–1.90]), rural residence (aHR, 1.25 [95%, CI 1.06–1.47]), and non‐English language (aHR 1.75 [95% CI 1.38–2.23]). The housing‐based socioeconomic index quartile was not associated with mortality. The final model achieved a concordance statistic of 0.77. Conclusions Mortality in patients with ACHD is strongly influenced by both clinical factors and SDOH, independent of socioeconomic status. Addressing barriers to care such as language, insurance, and geography is essential for improving ACHD survival particularly in those at increased mortality risk.

Evidence from medicine and other fields has shown that gender diversity results in better decision making and outcomes. The incoming workforce of congenital heart specialists (especially in pediatric cardiology) appears to be more gender balanced, but past studies have shown many inequities. Gender‐associated differences in leadership positions, opportunities presented for academic advancement, and recognition for academic contributions to the field persist. In addition, compensation packages remain disparate if evaluated based on gender with equivalent experience and expertise. This review explores these inequities and has suggested individual and institutional changes that could be made to recruit and retain women, monitor the climate of the institution, and identify and eliminate bias in areas like salary and promotions.

Abstract The congenital heart care community faces a myriad of public health issues that act as barriers toward optimum patient outcomes. In this article, we attempt to define advocacy and policy initiatives meant to spotlight and potentially address these challenges. Issues are organized into the following 3 key facets of our community: patient population, health care delivery, and workforce. We discuss the social determinants of health and health care disparities that affect patients in the community that require the attention of policy makers. Furthermore, we highlight the many needs of the growing adults with congenital heart disease and those with comorbidities, highlighting concerns regarding the inequities in access to cardiac care and the need for multidisciplinary care. We also recognize the problems of transparency in outcomes reporting and the promising application of telehealth. Finally, we highlight the training of providers, measures of productivity, diversity in the workforce, and the importance of patient–family centered organizations in advocating for patients. Although all of these issues remain relevant to many subspecialties in medicine, this article attempts to illustrate the unique needs of this population and highlight ways in which to work together to address important opportunities for change in the cardiac care community and beyond. This article provides a framework for policy and advocacy efforts for the next decade.