Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes最新文献

Background: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the use of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs) versus Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) among patients with stroke, which is poorly understood. Our objective was to quantify the net effect of the admitting hospital on the probability of receiving IRF or SNF care for individual patients with stroke.

Methods: Using Medicare claims data (2011-2013), a cohort of patients with acute stroke discharged to an IRF or SNF was identified. We generated 2 multivariable logistic regression models. Model 1 predicted IRF admission (versus SNF) using only patient-level factors, whereas model 2 added a hospital random effect term to quantify the hospital effect. The statistical significance and direction of the random effect terms were used to categorize hospitals as being either IRF-favoring, SNF-favoring, or neutral with respect to their discharge patterns. The hospital's impact on individual patient's probability of IRF discharge was estimated by taking the change in individual predicted probabilities (change in individual predicted probability) between the 2 models. Hospital-level effects were categorized as small (<10%), moderate (10%-19%), or large (≥20%) depending on change in individual predicted probability.

Results: The cohort included 135 415 patients (average age, 81.5 [SD=8.0] years, 61% female, 91% ischemic stroke) who were discharged from 1816 acute care hospitals to IRFs (n=66 548) or SNFs (n=68 867). Half of hospitals were classified as being either IRF-favoring (n=461, 25.4%) or SNF-favoring (n=485, 26.7%) with the remainder (n=870, 47.9%) considered neutral. Overall, just over half (n=73 428) of patients were treated at hospitals that had moderate or large independent effects on discharge settings. Hospital effects for neutral hospitals were small (ie, change in individual predicted probability <10%) for most patients (72.5%). However, hospital effects were moderate or large for 78.8% and 84.6% of patients treated at IRF- or SNF-favoring hospitals, respectively.

Conclusions: For most patients with stroke, the admitting hospital meaningfully changed the type of rehabilitation care that they received.

Background: Transgender and nonbinary individuals face substantial cardiovascular health uncertainties. The use of gender-affirming hormone therapy can be used to achieve one's gender-affirming goals. As self-rated health is an important predictor of health outcomes, an understanding of how this association is perceived by transgender and nonbinary individuals using gender-affirming hormone therapy is required. The objective of this research was to explore transgender and nonbinary individuals' perceptions of cardiovascular health in the context of using gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Methods: In this qualitative study, English-speaking transgender and nonbinary adults using gender-affirming hormone therapy for 3 months or more were recruited from across Canada using purposive and snowball sampling methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted through videoconference to explore transgender and nonbinary individuals' perceptions of the association between gender-affirming hormone therapy and cardiovascular health between May and August 2023. Data were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed independently by 3 reviewers using thematic analysis.

Results: Twenty-one participants were interviewed (8 transgender women, 9 transgender men, and 3 nonbinary individuals; median [range] age, 27 [20-69] years; 80% White participants). Three main themes were identified: cardiovascular health was not a primary concern in the decision-making process with regard to gender-affirming hormone therapy, the improved well-being associated with gender-affirming hormone therapy was felt to contribute to improved cardiovascular health, and health care provider knowledge and attitude facilitate the transition process.

Conclusions: Gender-affirming hormone therapy in transgender and nonbinary individuals is perceived to improve cardiovascular health. Given the positive associations between care aligned with patient priorities, self-rated health, and health outcomes, these findings should be considered as part of shared decision-making and person-centered care.

Background: Congenital heart defects (CHD) are the most common birth defects and previous estimates report the disease affects 1% of births annually in the United States. To date, CHD prevalence estimates are inconsistent due to varied definitions, data reliant on birth registries, and are geographically limited. These data sources may not be representative of the total prevalence of the CHD population. It is therefore important to derive high-quality, population-based estimates of the prevalence of CHD to help care for this vulnerable population.

Methods: We performed a descriptive, retrospective 8-year analysis using all-payer claims data from Colorado from 2012 to 2019. Children with CHD were identified by applying International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and International Classification of Diseases-Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes from the American Heart Association-American College of Cardiology harmonized cardiac codes. We included children with CHD <18 years of age who resided in Colorado, had a documented zip code, and had at least 1 health care claim. CHD type was categorized as simple, moderate, and severe disease. Association with comorbid conditions and genetic diagnoses were analyzed using χ² test. We used direct standardization to calculate adjusted prevalence rates, controlling for age, sex, primary insurance provider, and urban-rural residence.

Results: We identified 1 566 328 children receiving care in Colorado from 2012 to 2019. Of those, 30 512 children had at least 1 CHD diagnosis, comprising 1.95% (95% CI, 1.93-1.97) of the pediatric population. Over half of the children with CHD also had at least 1 complex chronic condition. After direct standardization, the adjusted prevalence rates show a small increase in simple severity diagnoses across the study period (adjusted rate of 11.5 [2012]-14.4 [2019]; P<0.001).

Conclusions: The current study is the first population-level analysis of pediatric CHD in the United States. Using administrative claims data, our study found a higher CHD prevalence and comorbidity burden compared with previous estimates.

Background: Influenza vaccination reduces the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). We sought to evaluate whether the presence of CVD modified the relative effectiveness of high-dose (QIV-HD) vs. standard-dose (QIV-SD) quadrivalent influenza vaccine in this prespecified analysis of the DANFLU-1 trial. Methods: DANFLU-1 was a pragmatic, open-label, randomized feasibility trial of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD in adults aged 65-79 years during the 2021/2022 influenza season in Denmark. Vaccines were allocated in a 1:1 ratio. Baseline and follow-up data regarding diagnoses and mortality were obtained from Danish national registers. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05048589. The CVDs assessed included heart failure (HF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation, and a combined group denoted "chronic CVD" consisting of the aforementioned diseases, among others. Prespecified outcomes included hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza, respiratory disease, CVD, cardiorespiratory disease, all-cause hospitalizations, and mortality. Effect modification was tested using interaction terms. Results: The final study population included 12,477 participants (mean age 71.7±3.9 years, 5,877 (47.1%) female), of whom 2,540 (20.4%) had chronic CVD. QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD was associated with a lower incidence of hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza (IRR 0.30 (95%-CI 0.14-0.64)) and all-cause mortality (IRR 0.51 (0.30-0.86)) regardless of chronic CVD (p for interaction=0.57 and 0.49, respectively). The relative effectiveness of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD against all-cause hospitalizations was modified in participants with chronic CVD (Overall: IRR 0.87 (0.76-0.99); no chronic CVD: 0.79 (0.67-0.92); chronic CVD: 1.11 (0.88-1.39); p for interaction=0.026). No other effect modification was observed by the presence of chronic CVD, HF, IHD, or atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: The relative effectiveness of QIV-HD vs. QIV-SD was consistent against hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza and all-cause mortality regardless of chronic CVD. However, the relative effectiveness against all-cause hospitalizations was modified by the presence of chronic CVD. These results should be considered hypothesis-generating.

Background: Long-term control of cardiovascular risk factors after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is the cornerstone for preventing recurrence. We investigated the extent of cardiovascular risk factor management in males and females with and without familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) 5 years after ACS.

Methods: We studied patients hospitalized for ACS between 2009 and 2017 in a Swiss multicenter prospective cohort study. FH was defined based on clinical criteria from the Dutch Lipid Clinic Network and Simon Broome definitions. Five years post-ACS, we assessed low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c) levels, lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and other cardiovascular risk factors, comparing males to females with and without FH using generalized estimating equations.

Results: A total of 3139 patients were included; mean age was 61.4 years (SD, 12.1), 620 (19.8%) were female, and 747 (23.5%) had possible FH. Compared with males at 5-years post-ACS, females were more likely to not use statins (odds ratio, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.28-2.03]) and less likely to have combination LLT (odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55-0.93]), without difference between patients with FH and without FH. Females in both FH and non-FH groups less frequently reached LDL-c values ≤1.8 mmol/L (odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.78-0.93]). Overall, patients with FH were more frequently on high-dose statins compared with patients without FH (51.0% versus 42.9%; P=0.001) and presented more frequently with a combination of 2 or more LLT compared with patients without FH (33.8% versus 17.7%; P<0.001), but less frequently reached LDL-c targets of ≤1.8 mmol/L (33.5% versus 44.3%; P<0.001) or ≤2.6 mmol/L (70.2% versus 78.1%; P=0.001).

Conclusions: Five years after ACS, females had less intensive LLT and were less likely to reach target LDL-c levels than males, regardless of FH status. Males and females with FH had less optimal control of LDL-c despite more frequently taking high-dose statins or combination LLT compared with patients without FH. Long-term management of patients with ACS and FH, especially females, warrants optimization.

Background: Sex disparities exist in the management and outcomes of various cardiovascular diseases. However, little is known about sex differences in cardiogenic shock (CS). We sought to assess sex-related differences in the characteristics, resource utilization, and outcomes of patients with CS.

Methods: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter registry of advanced cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. Between 2018 and 2022, each center (N=35) contributed annual 2-month snapshots of consecutive CICU admissions. Patients with CS were stratified as either CS after acute myocardial infarction or heart failure-related CS (HF-CS). Multivariable logistic regression was used for analyses.

Results: Of the 22 869 admissions in the overall population, 4505 (20%) had CS. Among 3923 patients with CS due to ventricular failure (32% female), 1235 (31%) had CS after acute myocardial infarction and 2688 (69%) had HF-CS. Median sequential organ failure assessment scores did not differ by sex. Women with HF-CS had shorter CICU lengths of stay (4.5 versus 5.4 days; P<0.0001) and shorter overall lengths of hospital stay (10.9 versus 12.8 days; P<0.0001) than men. Women with HF-CS were less likely to receive pulmonary artery catheters (50% versus 55%; P<0.01) and mechanical circulatory support (26% versus 34%; P<0.0001) compared with men. Women with HF-CS had higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after adjusting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities (34% versus 23%; odds ratio, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.42-2.17]). In contrast, there were no significant sex differences in utilization of advanced CICU monitoring and interventions, or mortality, among patients with CS after acute myocardial infarction.

Conclusions: Women with HF-CS had lower use of pulmonary artery catheters and mechanical circulatory support, shorter CICU lengths of stay, and higher in-hospital mortality than men, even after accounting for age, illness severity, and comorbidities. These data highlight the need to identify underlying reasons driving the differences in treatment decisions, so outcomes gaps in HF-CS can be understood and eliminated.

Background: Telehealth has emerged as an effective tool for managing common chronic conditions such as hypertension, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact of state telehealth payment and coverage parity laws on hypertension medication adherence remains uncertain.

Methods: Data from the 2016 to 2021 Merative MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database were used to construct the study cohort, which included nonpregnant individuals aged 25 to 64 years with hypertension. We coded telehealth parity laws related to hypertension management in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia, distinguishing between payment and coverage parity laws. The primary outcomes were measures of antihypertension medication adherence: the average medication possession ratio; medication adherence (medication possession ratio ≥80%); and average number of days of drug supply. We used a generalized difference-in-differences design to examine the impact of these laws.

Results: Among 353 220 individuals (mean [SD] age, 49.5 (7.1) years; female, 45.55%), states with payment parity laws were significantly linked to increased average medication possession ratio by 0.43 percentage point (95% CI, 0.07-0.79), and an increase of 0.46 percentage point (95% CI, 0.06-0.92) in the probability of medication adherence. Payment parity laws also led to an average increase of 2.14 days (95% CI, 0.11-4.17) in prescription supply, after controlling for state-fixed effects, year-fixed effects, individual sociodemographic characteristics and state time-varying covariates including unemployment rates, gross domestic product per capita, and poverty rates. In contrast, coverage parity laws were associated with a 2.13-day increase (95% CI, 0.19-4.07) in days of prescription supply but did not significantly increase the average medication possession ratio or probability of medication adherence.

Conclusions: State telehealth payment parity laws were significantly associated with greater medication adherence, whereas coverage parity laws were not. With the increasing adoption of telehealth parity laws across states, these findings may support policymakers in understanding potential implications on management of hypertension.