Lowenstern, Angela

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.

AbstractBackgroundNon‐statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non‐statin LLT remain incompletely described.HypothesisThe guideline‐recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.MethodsThe PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.ResultsAmong 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non‐statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline‐recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non‐statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non‐statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non‐statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again.ConclusionsNon‐statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline‐recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.

Background: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We constructed a decision-analytic Markov model to estimate the costs and benefits of catheter ablation and medical management in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and atrial fibrillation over a lifetime horizon. Evidence from the published literature informed the model inputs, including clinical effectiveness data from meta-analyses. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. A 3% discount rate was applied to both future costs and benefits. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio assessed from the US health care sector perspective. Results: Catheter ablation was associated with 6.47 (95% CI, 5.89–6.93) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a total cost of $105 657 (95% CI, $55 311–$191 934; 2018 US dollars), compared with 5.30 (95% CI, 5.20–5.39) QALYs and $63 040 (95% CI, $37 624–$102 260) for medical management. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for catheter ablation compared with medical management was $38 496 (95% CI, $5583–$117 510) per QALY gained. Model inputs with the greatest variation on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were the cost of ablation and the effect of catheter ablation on mortality reduction. When assuming a more conservative estimate of the treatment effect of catheter ablation on mortality (hazard ratio of 0.86), the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $74 403 per QALY gained. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained, atrial fibrillation ablation was found to be economically favorable compared with medical management in 95% of simulations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients and atrial fibrillation may be considered economically attractive at current benchmarks for societal willingness-to-pay in the United States.

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.