Gersh, Bernard J.

Background This study sought to evaluate the 15‐year national utilization, trends, predictors, disparities, and outcomes of palliative care services ( PCS ) use in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results A retrospective cohort from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2014 was analyzed using the National Inpatient Sample database. Administrative codes for acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock and PCS were used to identify eligible admissions. The primary outcomes were the frequency, utilization trends, and predictors of PCS . Secondary outcomes included in‐hospital mortality and resources utilization. Multivariable regression and propensity‐matching analyses were used to control for confounding. In this 15‐year period, there were 444 253 acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock admissions, of which 4.5% received PCS . The cohort receiving PCS was older, of white race, female sex, and with higher comorbidity and acute organ failure. The PCS cohort received fewer cardiac procedures, but more noncardiac organ support therapies. Older age, female sex, white race, higher comorbidity, higher socioeconomic status, admission to a larger hospital, and admission after 2008 were independent predictors of PCS use. Use of PCS was independently associated with higher in‐hospital mortality (odds ratio 6.59 [95% CI 6.37–6.83]; P <0.001). The cohort with PCS use had >2‐fold higher in‐hospital mortality, 12‐fold higher use of do‐not‐resuscitate status, lesser in‐hospital resource utilization, and fewer discharges to home. Similar findings were observed in the propensity‐matched cohort. Conclusions PCS use in patients with acute myocardial infarction–cardiogenic shock is low, though there is a trend towards increased adoption. There are significant patient and hospital‐specific disparities in the utilization of PCS .

Abstract Aims To evaluate sex-specific disparities in acute kidney injury (AKI) complicating acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in the United States. Methods and results This was a retrospective cohort study from 2000 to 2014 from the National Inpatient Sample (20% sample of all hospitals in the United States). Patients &gt;18 years admitted with a primary diagnosis of AMI and concomitant CS that developed AKI were included. The endpoints of interest were the prevalence, trends, and outcomes of men and women with AKI in AMI-CS. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression was used to control for confounding, and a two-sided P &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant. During this 15 year period, 440 257 admissions with AMI-CS met the inclusion criteria, with AKI noted in 155 610 (35.3%). Women constituted 36.3% of the cohort and were older, of non-White race, and with higher co-morbidity compared with men. Women with AKI less often received coronary angiography (59% vs. 66%), percutaneous coronary intervention (39% vs. 43%), mechanical circulatory support (39% vs. 48%), mechanical ventilation (49% vs. 54%), and haemodialysis (9% vs. 10%) compared with men (all P &lt; 0.001). Adjusted in-hospital mortality was higher in women—odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.14–1.19); P &lt; 0.001—compared with men. Women had shorter lengths of stay (12 ± 14 vs. 13 ± 14 days), lower hospital costs ($150 071 ± 180 796 vs. $181 260 ± 209 674), and were less often discharged to home (19% vs. 31%) (all P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions Women with AKI in AMI-CS received fewer cardiac and non-cardiac interventions, had higher in-hospital mortality, and were less often discharged to home compared with men.

Background: The treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction has been the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials involving medications and cardiac implantable electronic device therapies. As newer effective pharmacological therapies suggest significant reductions in all-cause mortality, the role of additional device therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction deserves further scrutiny. Methods: A systematic review and network meta-analysis on the effect of medication and device therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction on all-cause mortality was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between January 1980 and July 2017 were identified using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials databases. Pcnetmeta package in R was used to calculate treatment arm–based estimated rates, rate ratios, and probability ranks with 95% credible intervals. Results: Combination therapy of ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors or ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers) with β-blockers (BBs) alone or in addition to implantable cardiac defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillators demonstrated a significant reduction of all-cause mortality when compared with placebo. By probability rank, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, implantable cardiac defibrillator+ACE inhibitor or ARB+BB, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist combination therapies have the highest probability of being ranked the best treatment. There was no significant difference in the rate of mortality when comparing angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to implantable cardiac defibrillator+optimal pharmacological combination therapy. Conclusions: BB and renin-angiotensin system blockers alone or in combination with defibrillator device therapy have robust evidence for a reduction in mortality compared with placebo. The comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapy with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and device therapy deserves further investigation.

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on quality of life, but a clinically important difference in AFEQT score has not been well defined. Methods and Results: To determine the clinically important difference in overall AFEQT (score range= 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) and selected subscales, we analyzed data in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry, a United States-based outpatient atrial fibrillation registry. AFEQT was assessed at baseline and 1 year in a subset of 1347 ORBIT-AF patients from 80 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF from June 2010 to August 2011. The mean change method was used to relate changes in 1-year AFEQT scores to clinically important changes in the physician assessment of European Heart Rhythm Association functional status (1 class improvement and separately 1 class deterioration). Clinically important differences and 95% CI corresponding to either a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement or deterioration were 5.4 (3.6–7.2) and −4.2 (−6.9 to −1.5) AFEQT points, respectively. Similarly, clinically important difference values were seen for a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement for the AFEQT subscales Activities of Daily Living and Symptoms: 5.1 (2.5–7.6) and 7.1 (5.3–9.0) AFEQT points, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the anchor of 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class change, changes in AFEQT score of + or −5 points are clinically important changes in patients’ health. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Abstract Despite improvements in outcomes in the last few decades for heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there still remains a need for novel therapies as many patients incompletely recover with existing therapies and progress to advanced HF. In this review, we will discuss recent advances in the management of HFrEF with a focus on upcoming therapies that hold the greatest promise for clinical use. We will discuss novel pharmacological therapies and areas of uncertainty with existing therapies. We will also discuss the potential utility and controversy surrounding novel interventions for HF such as percutaneous mitral valve repair, atrial fibrillation ablation, and other emerging interventions with positive signals for benefit in HFrEF. Finally, we will summarize the current state of stem cell and gene therapy for HFrEF and future directions.

Background Invasive angiography in the setting of cardiac troponin elevation may reveal non-obstructive coronary arteries leading to uncertainty in diagnosis. Cardiac MR (CMR) may aid in diagnosis, however, the spectrum of diagnostic findings in the patient presenting with symptoms of cardiac ischaemia, elevated cardiac biomarkers and a negative invasive coronary angiogram is yet to be completely described. Methods We queried the Mayo Clinic, Rochester inpatient record from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2016 to identify patients who: (1) had an elevated troponin T during admission, (2) underwent coronary angiography within 30 days of troponin T elevation which was considered negative for obstructive coronary arterial disease and (3) underwent CMR within 30 days of troponin T elevation. CMR diagnoses were classified as either (1) myocarditis, (2) small area myocardial infarction, (3) stress cardiomyopathy, (4) non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy or (5) normal. Results Of 215 patients, the spectrum of disease seen on CMR was myocarditis (32%), small area infarction (22%), non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy (20%) and stress cardiomyopathy (9.3%). Conclusion In the largest single-centre study assessing the role of CMR in patients admitted with elevated troponin T with a non-obstructive coronary disease on an angiogram, small area infarction was seen in 22% of patients.

BackgroundThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.HypothesisWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.MethodsUsing data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.ResultsIn ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00412984.