Alexander, Karen P.

Abstract Whether initiation of statins could increase survival free of dementia and disability in adults aged ≥75 years is unknown. PREVENTABLE, a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomized pragmatic clinical trial, will compare high‐intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg) with placebo in 20,000 community‐dwelling adults aged ≥75 years without cardiovascular disease, disability, or dementia at baseline. Exclusion criteria include statin use in the prior year or for >5 years and inability to take a statin. Potential participants are identified using computable phenotypes derived from the electronic health record and local referrals from the community. Participants will undergo baseline cognitive testing, with physical testing and a blinded lipid panel if feasible. Cognitive testing and disability screening will be conducted annually. Multiple data sources will be queried for cardiovascular events, dementia, and disability; survival is site‐reported and supplemented by a National Death Index search. The primary outcome is survival free of new dementia or persisting disability. Co‐secondary outcomes are a composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization for unstable angina or myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or coronary revascularization; and a composite of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Ancillary studies will offer mechanistic insights into the effects of statins on key outcomes. Biorepository samples are obtained and stored for future study. These results will inform the benefit of statins for increasing survival free of dementia and disability among older adults. This is a pioneering pragmatic study testing important questions with low participant burden to align with the needs of the growing population of older adults.

Background: Patients evaluated for coronary artery disease have a range of symptoms and underlying risk. The relationships between patient-described symptoms, clinician conclusions, and subsequent clinical management and outcomes remain incompletely described. Methods: In this secondary analysis, we examined the association between 4 types of presenting symptoms (substernal/left-sided chest pain, other chest/neck/arm pain, dyspnea, and other symptoms) and patient risk, noninvasive test results, clinical management, and outcomes for stable outpatients randomized in the PROMISE (Prospective Multicenter Imaging Study for Evaluation of Chest Pain) trial. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate differences in noninvasive test result, all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction by symptom type. Results: Among 9996 patients, most presented with chest pain (47.2% substernal, 29.2% other), followed by dyspnea (14.9%), and other symptoms (8.7%). Patients with dyspnea were older (median age 63 versus 60, P ≤0.02) with higher baseline risk (78.2% with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease >7.5% versus 67.6%, P ≤0.02). Using patients with substernal chest pain as a reference, there was no difference in noninvasive test positivity across symptom groups (all P >0.05), but test-positive patients with dyspnea (adjusted odds ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51–0.85]) or other symptoms (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47–0.90]) were less likely to be referred for cardiac catheterization. While symptom type alone was not associated with outcomes, symptom presentation with chest pain or dyspnea did modify the association between a positive noninvasive test and clinical outcome (interaction P =0.025 for both all-cause death/myocardial infarction/unstable angina hospitalization and cardiovascular death/MI). Conclusions: Among low-risk outpatients evaluated for coronary artery disease, typicality of symptoms was not closely associated with higher baseline risk but was related to differences in processes of care and the prognostic value of a positive test. Adverse events were not associated with clinician risk estimates or symptoms alone. These unexpected findings highlight the limitation of relying solely on symptom presentation or clinician risk estimation to evaluate patients for suspected coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01174550.

Background: One month following a myocardial infarction (MI), more than a third of older adults (age ≥65 years) are frail as demonstrated by slow gait speed (≤ 0.65 m/sec). The prognostic significance of frailty in a cardiovascular population in terms of future health states is unknown. Methods: The TRIUMPH longitudinal registry enrolled 1314 older adults (age ≥65 years) following an acute MI from 24 US centers. Gait speed (m/sec) was determined at one month (to allow for acute recovery) in 329 patients with in-home follow up. Using averages of 3 timed walks over 15-feet, patients were stratified by gait speed into 2 groups: slow (<0.65m/sec) and preserved (≥0.65m/sec). One year basic (mobility, self care) and instrumental activities of daily living (ADL) (phone, meds, travel, money), physical function score (SF12 PCS), quality of life (Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ)), and mortality were assessed. Results: Slow gait speed was present in 38% (N=126) of older adults at 1 month. At 1 year, despite similar survival, frail adults were much more likely to need help with basic and instrumental (ADL), and had lower physical function and quality of life (QOL) compared to non-frail adults. ( table ) Slower gait speed remained a significant predictor of worse physical function at 1 year after adjustment for baseline physical function (p=0.013). Conclusions: Frailty is common in older adults following an MI, and those with frailty are at substantial risk for continued impairment over time. Understanding the mechanisms or reversibility of this vulnerable state would contribute to optimization of independence and quality of life among older adults with cardiovascular disease. Frailty Post MI and 1 Year Outcomes Frail (Gait <0.65m/sec)N=126 Not Frail (Gait ≥0.65m/sec)N=203 P value Mobility ADL (% need help) 45 23 <0.001 Self-Care ADL (% need help) 11 4 <0.001 Instrumental ADLs (% need help) 36 19 0.003 Physical Function (PCS) 39.2 ± 12.0 47.2 ± 9.7 <0.001 SAQ Quality of Life (QOL) 88.0 ± 15.9 91.3 ± 12.1 0.061 Mortality (%) 5.6 4.5 NS

Background: Guidelines recommend involvement of palliative care (PC) for patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease and their families. Little is known about the current integration of PC and CV services. Research Objectives: Our national survey aimed to describe current practices and to identify benefits, challenges, and barriers with collaboration. Methods: Qualitative content analysis of open-response questions in an investigator-developed electronic survey study of CV and PC providers (MDs, NPs, PAs, and other allied health) using email listservs, social media, and crowdsourcing. Frequencies were tabulated using SAS statistical software. Results: Of 134 respondents, most were physicians (n=56, 57%) or advanced practice RNs or PAs (n=37, 28%), from 52 U.S. institutions, representing 33 states. The most common care for which PC was integrated were mechanical circulatory support, advanced heart failure, and heart transplantation; the least common care for which PC was integrated were TAVR, ECMO, and pulmonary hypertension. Integrated practice (n=80, 61%), PC identification of goals of care (n=20, 15%) and PC aid in patient/family communication (n=15, 11%) were the most commonly identified as positives in current practice. PC provider workforce (n=22, 16%), underutilization of PC referrals (n=20, 15%), late disease PC referral (n=19, 14%), and fundamental knowledge deficit of specialty scope (n=18, 14%) were most frequently identified as challenges. Other barriers specifically noted were underdeveloped health infrastructure and limited allocated resources (n=23,17%) and mis-/negative perception of services (n=15, 11%). Conclusion: PC and CV collaboration occurs for a high proportion of CV patients and is viewed as overwhelming positive, despite the challenges of limited PC specialists availability, underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure, limited understanding of specialty practice, and late referrals. Priorities includes increasing PC provider availability, expanding knowledge of PC services, educating providers on models of collaboration, and improving institutional support.

The incidence and prevalence of most cardiovascular disorders increase with age, and cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) is the leading cause of death and major disability in adults aged 75 and older. Despite the effect of CVD on quality of life, morbidity, and mortality in older adults, individuals aged 75 and older have been markedly underrepresented in most major cardiovascular trials, and virtually all trials have excluded older adults with complex comorbidities, significant physical or cognitive disabilities, frailty, or residence in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. As a result, current guidelines are unable to provide evidence‐based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of older adults typical of those encountered in routine clinical practice. The objectives of this scientific statement are to summarize current guideline recommendations as they apply to older adults, identify critical gaps in knowledge that preclude informed evidence‐based decision‐making, and recommend future research to close existing knowledge gaps. To achieve these objectives, a detailed review was conducted of current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ( ACC / AHA ) and American Stroke Association ( ASA ) guidelines to identify content and recommendations that explicitly targeted older adults. A pervasive lack of evidence to guide clinical decision‐making in older adults with CVD was found, as well as a paucity of data on the effect of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions on outcomes that are particularly important to older adults, such as quality of life, physical function, and maintenance of independence. Accordingly, there is a critical need for a multitude of large population‐based studies and clinical trials that include a broad spectrum of older adults representative of those seen in clinical practice and that incorporate relevant outcomes important to older adults in the study design. The results of these studies will provide the foundation for future evidence‐based guidelines applicable to older adults and enhance person‐centered care of older individuals with CVD in the United States and around the world.