Association between poverty and appropriate statin prescription for the treatment of hyperlipidemia in the United States: An analysis from the ACC NCDR PINNACLE registry

Background: Poverty is associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction and cardiac death, both of which are decreased by treatment of hyperlipidemia. There may be differences in the appropriate treatment of hyperlipidemia between richer and poorer Americans. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between income level and appropriate lipid-lowering therapy.Methods: We identified outpatient visits in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry\u27s Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) Registry and determined appropriateness of lipid-lowering therapy among patients in different income quintiles (Quintile 5 being the highest income quintile). Logistic regression at the patient level was performed to evaluate the independent association of income and the primary outcome of appropriate statin therapy. The analysis was repeated before and after November 2013 given a change in guideline definitions.Results: The study included 1,655,723 patients. Overall, 68-73% of patients were treated appropriately under the ATP III Guidelines and 57-62% of patients were treated appropriately under the ACC/AHA Guidelines. Patients in the wealthiest quintile had higher odds of appropriate statin therapy under both guidelines relative to patients in the poorest quintile (OR 1.06 [1.05-1.07] for ATP III and OR 1.03 [1.01-1.04] for ACC/AHA). In the whole sample, patients with higher estimated income had a small but significant increased likelihood of appropriate statin therapy (point-biserial correlation 0.035 [p \u3c 0.001] for ATP III and 0.026 [p \u3c 0.001] for ACC/AHA).Conclusions: Here we describe a small association between appropriate statin use and income. Further investigation into barriers in the use of evidence-based therapies in poorer populations is needed

Racial and Ethnic Differences in the Clinical Diagnosis of Aortic Stenosis

Background Racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented among patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in the United States. We evaluated the impact of race and ethnicity on the diagnosis of aortic stenosis (AS). Methods and Results In patients with transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)-confirmed AS, we assessed rates of AS diagnosis as defined by assignment of an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code for AS within a large multicenter electronic health record. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard and competing risk regression models were used to evaluate the 1-year rate of AS diagnosis by race and ethnicity. Among 14 800 patients with AS, the 1-year diagnosis rate for AS following TTE was 37.4%. Increasing AS severity was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving an AS diagnosis (moderate: hazard ratio [HR], 3.05 [95% CI, 2.86-3.25]; P<0.0001; severe: HR, 4.82 [95% CI, 4.41-5.28]; P<0.0001). Compared with non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black (HR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.54-0.77]; P<0.0001) and non-Hispanic Asian individuals (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.90], P=0.004) were less likely to receive a diagnosis of AS. Additional factors associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving an AS diagnosis included a noncardiology TTE ordering provider (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86-0.97]; P=0.005) and TTE performed in the inpatient setting (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66-0.78]; P<0.0001). Conclusions Rates of receiving an ICD diagnostic code for AS following a diagnostic TTE are low and vary significantly by race and ethnicity and disease severity. Further studies are needed to determine if efforts to maximize the clinical recognition of TTE-confirmed AS may help to mitigate disparities in treatment

Managing Severe Aortic Stenosis in the COVID-19 Era

The novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created uncertainty in the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis. This population experiences high mortality from delays in treatment of valve disease but is largely overlapping with the population of highest mortality from COVID-19. The authors present strategies for managing patients with severe aortic stenosis in the COVID-19 era. The authors suggest transitions to virtual assessments and consultation, careful pruning and planning of necessary testing, and fewer and shorter hospital admissions. These strategies center on minimizing patient exposure to COVID-19 and expenditure of human and health care resources without significant sacrifice to patient outcomes during this public health emergency. Areas of innovation to improve care during this time include increased use of wearable and remote devices to assess patient performance and vital signs, devices for facile cardiac assessment, and widespread use of clinical protocols for expedient discharge with virtual physical therapy and cardiac rehabilitation options

Patient‐ and Process‐Related Contributors to the Underuse of Aortic Valve Replacement and Subsequent Mortality in Ambulatory Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Background Many patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and an indication for aortic valve replacement (AVR) do not undergo treatment. The reasons for this have not been well studied in the transcatheter AVR era. We sought to determine how patient- and process-specific factors affected AVR use in patients with severe AS. Methods and Results We identified ambulatory patients from 2016 to 2018 demonstrating severe AS, defined by aortic valve area [Formula: see text]1.0 cm2. Propensity scoring analysis with inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate associations between predictors and the odds of undergoing AVR at 365 days and subsequent mortality at 730 days. Of 324 patients with an indication for AVR (79.3±9.7 years, 57.4% men), 140 patients (43.2%) did not undergo AVR. The odds of AVR were reduced in patients aged >90 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.08-0.69]; P=0.01), greater comorbid conditions (OR, 0.88 per 1-point increase in Combined Comorbidity Index [95% CI, 0.79-0.97]; P=0.01), low-flow, low-gradient AS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.06-0.21]), and low-gradient AS with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.08-0.40]) and were increased if the transthoracic echocardiogram ordering provider was a cardiologist (OR, 2.46 [95% CI, 1.38-4.38]). Patients who underwent AVR gained an average of 85.8 days of life (95% CI, 40.9-130.6) at 730 days. Conclusions The proportion of ambulatory patients with severe AS and an indication for AVR who do not receive AVR remains significant. Efforts are needed to maximize the recognition of severe AS, especially low-gradient subtypes, and to encourage patient referral to multidisciplinary heart valve teams