Mamas, Mamas

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk. Data are limited regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of ACS in patients with IBD. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with IBD admitted for ACS in the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2005 to 2015 was conducted. We analyzed trends in IBD-ACS admissions and mortality, differences in risk profiles, management strategies, and in-hospital mortality between IBD-ACS and non-IBD ACS and between ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD). Results We studied 6,872,415 non-IBD ACS and 24,220 IBD-ACS hospitalizations (53% with CD). During the study period, the number of hospitalizations for IBD-ACS increased, particularly those related to CD. Compared with non-IBD ACS, patients with IBD-ACS had a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and similar rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower with IBD-ACS (3.9%) compared with non-IBD ACS (5.3%; odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.96; P = 0.011) and was stable between 2005 and 2015. Risk factors, ACS management strategies, and mortality were similar between CD and UC. Coagulopathy, weight loss, and gastrointestinal bleeding were more frequent in IBD-ACS and were strong independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions Hospitalizations for ACS in patients with IBD increased in recent years but death rates were stable. The ACS-related risk profiles and mortality were modestly favorable with IBD-ACS than with non-IBD ACS and were similar between CD and UC. Complications more frequently associated with IBD were strongly associated with mortality. These findings indicate that aggressive management of IBD and ACS comorbidities is required to improve outcomes.

Background The management of patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis is challenging. Evidence on early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus symptom-driven intervention in these patients is unknown. Methods Electronic databases were searched, articles comparing early-AVR with conservative management for severe aortic stenosis were identified. Pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) was computed using a random-effect model to determine all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Results A total of eight studies consisting of 2201 patients were identified. Early-AVR was associated with lower all-cause mortality [OR 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13–0.45, P ≤ 0.00001] and cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06–0.70, P = 0.01) compared with conservative management. The number needed to treat to prevent 1 all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was 4 and 9, respectively. The odds of all-cause mortality in a selected patient population undergoing surgical AVR (SAVR) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09–0.29, P ≤ 0.00001) and SAVR or transcatheter AVR (TAVR) (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35–0.81, P = 0.003) were significantly lower compared with patients who are managed conservatively. A subgroup sensitivity analysis based on severe aortic stenosis (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.52, P = 0.0004) versus very severe aortic stenosis (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08–0.51, P = 0.0008) also mirrored the findings of overall results. Conclusion Patients with asymptomatic aortic valve stenosis have lower odds of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality when managed with early-AVR compared with conservative management. However, because of significant heterogeneity in the classification of asymptomatic patients, large scale studies are required.