Search

Nursing professional organizations and media sources indicated early in the pandemic that the physical and psychological effects of COVID-19 might be distinct and possibly greater in nurses than in other types of healthcare workers (HCWs).Based on survey data collected in Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO), a national registry of U.S. HCWs, this study compared the self-reported experiences of nurses with other HCWs during the first 13 months of the pandemic.Nurse responses were compared to responses of nonnurse HCWs in terms of viral exposure, testing and infection, access to personal protective equipment (PPE), burnout, and well-being. Logistic regression models were used to examine associations between nurse and nonnurse roles for the binary end points of viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19. We also examined differences by race/ethnicity and high-risk versus low-risk practice settings.Of 24,343 HCWs in the registry, one third self-identified as nurses. Nurses were more likely than other HCWs to report exposure to SARS-CoV-2, problems accessing PPE, and decreased personal well-being, including burnout, feeling tired, stress, trouble sleeping, and worry. In adjusted models, nurses were more likely than nonnurse HCWs to report viral testing and test positivity for COVID-19 infection. Nurses in high-risk settings were more likely to report viral exposure and symptoms related to well-being; nurses in low-risk settings were more likely to report viral testing and test positivity. Black or Hispanic nurses were most likely to report test positivity.Differences were identified between nurses and nonnurse HCWs in access to PPE, physical and mental well-being measures, and likelihood of reporting exposure and infection. Among nurses, testing and infection differed based on race and ethnicity, and type of work setting. Our findings suggest further research and policy are needed to elucidate and address social and occupational disparities.

BACKGROUND The use of apixaban instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) as well as dropping aspirin results in less bleeding and comparable ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention treated with a P2Y12 inhibitor. OBJECTIVES The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens according to HAS-BLED and CHA2DS2-VASc scores in AUGUSTUS (The Open-Label, 2 × 2 Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin vs. Placebo in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). METHODS In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients were randomized in a 2-by-2 factorial design to open-label apixaban or VKA and blinded aspirin or placebo. The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding over 6 months of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess treatment effects by baseline HAS-BLED (≤2 vs ≥3) and CHA2DS2-VASc (≤2 vs ≥3) scores. RESULTS Of 4,386 (95.1%) patients with calculable scores, 66.8% had HAS-BLED ≥3 and 81.7% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3. Bleeding rates were lower with apixaban than VKA irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.78 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.88 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.23). Aspirin increased bleeding irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.36-2.56 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.47-2.23 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.88). Apixaban resulted in a lower risk of death or hospitalization than VKA without a significant interaction with baseline stroke risk (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.25 [CHA2DS2-VASc ≤2]; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94 [CHA2DS2-VASc ≥3]; interaction P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS Our findings support the use of apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin for most patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention, irrespective of a patient's baseline bleeding and stroke risk (NCT02415400).

The purpose of this study was to characterize the clinical profile, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with comorbid diabetes mellitus (DM) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in a contemporary, real-world U.S. outpatient registry in the context of evolving treatment strategies.Specific antihyperglycemic classes have differential risks and benefits with respect to HF. Limited data are available evaluating contemporary treatment patterns and outcomes of patients with comorbid DM and HFrEF.Among 4,970 patients with chronic HFrEF (≤40%) across 152 U.S. sites in the CHAMP-HF prospective, observational registry (2015 to 2017), we examined therapies and clinical outcomes by DM status.Median age was 68 (58 to 75) years of age; 29% were women; 73.5% were white; and 64% had coronary artery disease. Overall, 42% (n = 2,085) had comorbid DM with a median hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 7.2% (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.4% to 8.3%). One-fourth of DM patients (24%) were not treated with an antihyperglycemic therapy. Most patients with DM were taking 1 (46%) or 2 (23%) antihyperglycemic therapies: metformin (40%); insulin (33%); sulfonylureas (24%); dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (10%); glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists (4%); sodium-glucose cotransporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors (2%); and thiazolidinediones (2%). Among patients with DM, 62%, 16%, 80%, and 33.5% were receiving any angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), β-blockers, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) at baseline, respectively. Among patients without DM, corresponding baseline rates were 65%, 15%, 80%, and 37%, respectively. Patients with or without DM were infrequently treated with guideline-directed HFrEF therapies at target doses (≤27% across classes). During median 15-month follow-up, patients with DM experienced higher rates of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization (30% vs. 23%, respectively), independent of 11 pre-specified covariates (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.35 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 1.52); p 0.001).Despite higher risk-adjusted clinical event rates in patients with comorbid HFrEF and DM, guideline-directed medical therapies for both disease states are incomplete and represent an important target for quality improvement through multidisciplinary care pathways.

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or no previous revascularization undergoing primary PCI.Limited data exist regarding door-to-balloon times and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients with a history of CABG or PCI undergoing primary PCI.We examined 15,628 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI at 297 sites in the United States. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to compare door-to-balloon time delays90 min and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).Patients with previous CABG were significantly older and more likely to have multiple comorbidities (p0.0001). Previous CABG was associated with a lower likelihood of a door-to-balloon time ≤90 min compared with patients with no previous revascularization. However, no significant differences in door-to-balloon times were noted between patients with previous PCI and those without previous revascularization. The unadjusted MACCE risk was significantly higher in patients with a history of CABG compared with patients without previous revascularization (odds ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.31). However, after multivariable risk adjustment, there were no significant differences in MACCE risk between the 2 groups. No significant differences in in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a previous PCI and those without previous revascularization.In a large cohort of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, patients with previous CABG were more likely to have reperfusion delays, yet risk-adjusted, in-hospital outcomes were similar to those without previous revascularization. No significant differences in reperfusion timeliness and in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a history of PCI compared with patients without previous revascularization.