Department of veterans affairs post-coronary artery bypass graft patients’ atrial fibrillation: 10-year outcomes

Aim: This Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) research project evaluated the impact of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) upon 10-year outcomes for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients.Methods: Veterans enrolled in the “Randomized On-/Off-pump Bypass” (ROOBY) trial with new-onset POAF post-CABG were compared to those without POAF with respect to 10-year atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality rates. Multivariable logistic regression examined whether AF was independently associated with 10-year survival after holding other preoperative risk factors constant.Results: Of the 2203 ROOBY veterans enrolled at 18 VA medical centers from 2002 to 2008, 100 patients with preoperative AF (n = 93) or unknown post-CABG POAF status (n = 7) were excluded. The POAF rate was 26.2% (n = 551/2103). The POAF patients were older and had more co-morbidities than the non-POAF patients (n = 1552). The AF rate among 10-year ROOBY POAF survivors was 18.9% (n = 64/338) compared to 5.8% (n = 61/1048) for non-POAF patients; P < 0.001. Compared to non-POAF patients’ 10-year survival of 70%, the ROOBY POAF veterans’ 10-year survival rate was 63%. Baseline risks inversely associated with 10-year survival included age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, serum creatinine > 1.5, peripheral vascular disease, and smoking. Holding these factors constant, POAF was not independently associated with 10-year survival.Conclusion: Post-CABG, ROOBY POAF veterans had higher rates of 10-year AF, which was negatively associated with 10-year survival; however, this association was not significant. Given that POAF may adversely impact 10-year AF rates, additional investigation appears warranted to improve future POAF patients’ care

Association Between Antithrombotic Medication Use After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement and Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration System

IMPORTANCE: The recommendations about antithrombotic medication use after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) vary. OBJECTIVES: To describe the post-bAVR antithrombotic medication practice across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and to assess the association between antithrombotic strategies and post-bAVR outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study. Multivariable modeling with propensity scores was conducted to adjust for differences in patient characteristics across the 3 most common antithrombotic medication strategies (aspirin plus warfarin sodium, aspirin only, and dual antiplatelets). Text mining of notes was used to identify the patients with bAVR (fiscal years 2005-2015). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: This study used VHA and non-VHA outpatient pharmacy data and text notes to classify the following antithrombotic medications prescribed within 1 week after discharge from the bAVR hospitalization: aspirin plus warfarin, aspirin only, dual antiplatelets, no antithrombotics, other only, and warfarin only. The 90-day outcomes included all-cause mortality, thromboembolism risk, and bleeding events. Outcomes were identified using primary diagnosis codes from emergency department visits or hospital admissions. RESULTS: The cohort included 9060 veterans with bAVR at 47 facilities (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [8.8] years; 98.6% male). The number of bAVR procedures per year increased from 610 in fiscal year 2005 to 1072 in fiscal year 2015. The most commonly prescribed antithrombotic strategy was aspirin only (4240 [46.8%]), followed by aspirin plus warfarin (1638 [18.1%]), no antithrombotics (1451 [16.0%]), dual antiplatelets (1010 [11.1%]), warfarin only (439 [4.8%]), and other only (282 [3.1%]). Facility variation in antithrombotic prescription patterns was observed. During the 90-day post-bAVR period, adverse events were uncommon, including all-cause mortality in 127 (1.4%), thromboembolism risk in 142 (1.6%), and bleeding events in 149 (1.6%). No differences in 90-day mortality or thromboembolism were identified across the 3 antithrombotic medication groups in either the unadjusted or adjusted models. Patients receiving the combination of aspirin plus warfarin had higher odds of bleeding than patients receiving aspirin only in the unadjusted analysis (odds ratio, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.71-3.89) and after full risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.17-3.14). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data demonstrate that bAVR procedures are increasingly being performed in VHA facilities and that aspirin only was the most commonly used antithrombotic medication strategy after bAVR. The risk-adjusted results suggest that the combination of aspirin plus warfarin does not improve either all-cause mortality or thromboembolism risk but increases the risk of bleeding events compared with aspirin only

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used