Search

Comparisons of the outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA) and patients with nonobstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) without myocardial infarction (MI) are limited. Here we compare the outcomes of patients with MINOCA and patients with nonobstructive CAD without MI and assess the influence of medical therapy on outcomes in these patients. Veterans who underwent coronary angiography between 2008 to 2017 with nonobstructive CAD were divided into those with or without pre-procedural troponin elevation. Patients with prior revascularization, heart failure, or who presented with cardiogenic shock, STEMI, or unstable angina were excluded. After propensity matching, outcomes were compared between groups. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: mortality, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) within one year: 3,924 patients with nonobstructive CAD and a troponin obtained prior to angiography were identified (n=1,986 with elevated troponin) and restricted to 1,904 patients after propensity-matching. There was a significantly higher risk of MACE among troponin-positive patients compared with those with a negative troponin (HR 2.37; 95% CI, 1.67 to 3.34). Statin (HR 0.32; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.49) and ACE inhibitor (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.75) therapy after angiography was associated with decreased MACE, while P2Y12 inhibitor, calcium-channel and beta-blocker therapy were not associated with outcomes. In conclusion, Veterans with MINOCA are at increased risk for MACE compared with those with nonobstructive CAD and negative troponin at the time of angiography. Specific medications were associated with a reduction in MACE, suggesting an opportunity to explore novel approaches for secondary prevention in this population., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Randomized data suggest lenient rate control (resting heart rate <110 beats/min) is noninferior to strict rate control (resting heart rate <80 beats/min) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the optimal rate control strategy in patients with AF and heart failure (HF) remains unknown. Accordingly, we performed an observational analysis using data from the Get With The Guidelines-HF Program linked with Medicare data from July 1, 2011, to September 30, 2014. Of 13,981 patients with AF and HF, 9,100 (65.0%) had strict rate control, 4,617 (33.0%) had lenient rate control, and 264 (1.9%) had poor rate control by resting heart rate on the day of discharge. After multivariable adjustment, compared with strict rate control, lenient rate control was associated with higher adjusted risks of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.33, p <0.001), all-cause readmission (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.15, p <0.002), death or all-cause readmission (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.18, p <0.001), but not cardiovascular readmission (HR1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.16, p = 0.051) at 90 days. Associations were comparable in patients with poor rate control and with heart rate modeled as a continuous variable. The presence or absence of reduced ejection fraction did not impact the magnitude of most observed associations. In conclusion, in patients with HF and AF, 2 of 3 patients had a heart rate that met strict-control goals at discharge. Heart rates >80 beats/min were associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Prior studies have shown a treatment gap in oral anticoagulation (OAC) use among patients with atrial fibrillation yet have incompletely characterized factors associated with failure to treat and subsequent outcomes in contemporary practice., Methods: Using data collected between June 2010 and August 2011 from 174 ambulatory care sites in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we identified factors associated with absence of OAC via stratified logistic regression. Using weighted Cox regression, we assessed the association between OAC non-use and subsequent outcomes over 2.5 years., Results: Among 9553 patients, 2202 (23.0%) were not on OAC. Among OAC nonrecipients, 1846 (83.8%) had a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥2. Factors independently associated with OAC non-use included atrial fibrillation type (paroxysmal odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.99; persistent OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.10-0.21; permanent OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.49; reference = new-onset), left atrial diameter enlargement (mild OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97; moderate 0.58, 95% CI 0.47-0.73; severe 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.68; reference = normal diameter), and age >80 years (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.08). Untreated patients had a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41), a lower bleeding risk (adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.81), and a nonsignificant trend toward higher risk of stroke/non-central nervous system embolism/transient ischemic attack than those treated (adjusted HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.91-1.54)., Conclusions: A majority of atrial fibrillation patients not treated with an OAC in current community practice meet guideline indications for treatment. Atrial fibrillation burden, chronicity, and comorbidity are associated with nontreatment. Untreated patients are at increased risk for adverse outcomes., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients with atrial fibrillation often have cardiovascular risk factors or known comorbid disease, yet the use of evidence-based primary and secondary prevention cardiac therapy among atrial fibrillation outpatients is unknown., Methods: Using baseline data collected between June 2010 and August 2011 from 174 sites participating in ORBIT-AF, a US national registry of patients with atrial fibrillation coordinated from Durham, NC, we examined professional guideline-recommended evidence-based therapy use for cardiovascular comorbid conditions and risk factors. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with receipt of all indicated evidence-based therapy., Results: Among 10,096 enrolled patients, 93.5% were eligible for one or more evidence-based therapies. Among those eligible, 46.6% received all indicated therapies: 62.3% received an antiplatelet agent, 72.3% received a beta-blocker, 59.5% received an angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin receptor blocker, 15.3% received an aldosterone antagonist, 65.7% received a statin, and 58.8% received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. A minority of patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, and peripheral vascular disease received all indicated therapies (25.1%, 43.2%, 42.5%, and 43.4%, respectively). A total of 52.4% of patients had controlled hypertension and 74.6% of patients with hyperlipidemia received a statin. Factors associated with nonreceipt of all indicated therapies included frailty, comorbid illness, geographic region, and antiarrhythmic drug therapy., Conclusions: The majority of eligible atrial fibrillation outpatients did not receive all guideline-recommended therapies for cardiovascular comorbid conditions and risk factors. This represents a potential opportunity to improve atrial fibrillation patients' quality of care and outcomes., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)