Search

Younger women experience worse health status than men after their index episode of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, whether women have a higher risk for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalizations in the year after discharge is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine sex differences in causes and timing of 1-year outcomes after AMI in people aged 18 to 55 years. Data from the VIRGO (Variation in Recovery: Role of Gender on Outcomes of Young AMI Patients) study, which enrolled young patients with AMI across 103 U.S. hospitals, were used. Sex differences in all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations were compared by calculating incidence rates ([IRs] per 1,000 person-years) and IR ratios with 95% CIs. We then performed sequential modeling to evaluate the sex difference by calculating subdistribution HRs (SHRs) accounting for deaths. Among 2,979 patients, at least 1 hospitalization occurred among 905 patients (30.4%) in the year after discharge. The leading causes of hospitalization were coronary related (IR: 171.8 [95% CI: 153.6-192.2] among women vs 117.8 [95% CI: 97.3-142.6] among men), followed by noncardiac hospitalization (IR: 145.8 [95% CI: 129.2-164.5] among women vs 69.6 [95% CI: 54.5-88.9] among men). Furthermore, a sex difference was present for coronary-related hospitalizations (SHR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.04-1.70; P = 0.02) and noncardiac hospitalizations (SHR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.13-2.07; P = 0.01). Young women with AMI experience more adverse outcomes than men in the year after discharge. Coronary-related hospitalizations were most common, but noncardiac hospitalizations showed the most significant sex disparity. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recent trends, including survival beyond 30 days, in aortic valve replacement (AVR) following the expansion of indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are not well-understood.Objectives: The authors sought to characterize the trends in characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing AVR.Methods: The authors analyzed Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR and SAVR in 2012 to 2019. They evaluated case volume, demographics, comorbidities, 1-year mortality, and discharge disposition. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the annual change in outcomes.Results: Per 100,000 beneficiary-years, AVR increased from 107 to 156, TAVR increased from 19 to 101, whereas SAVR declined from 88 to 54. The median [interquartile range] age remained similar from 77 [71-83] years to 78 [72-84] years for overall AVR, decreased from 84 [79-88] years to 81 [75-86] years for TAVR, and decreased from 76 [71-81] years to 72 [68-77] years for SAVR. For all AVR patients, the prevalence of comorbidities remained relatively stable. The 1-year mortality for all AVR decreased from 11.9% to 9.4%. Annual change in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.94) for TAVR and 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97-0.99) for SAVR, and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.93-0.95) for all AVR. Patients discharged to home after AVR increased from 24.2% to 54.7%, primarily driven by increasing home discharge after TAVR.Conclusions: The advent of TAVR has led to about a 60% increase in overall AVR in older adults. Improving outcomes in AVR as a whole following the advent of TAVR with increased access is a reassuring trend. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization (WHO) Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) is a key tool for improving global access to medicines for all conditions, including cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The WHO EML is used by member states to determine their national essential medicine lists and policies and to guide procurement of medicines in the public sector. Here, we describe our efforts to modernize the EML for global CVD prevention and control. We review the recent history of applications to add, delete, and change indications for CVD medicines, with the aim of aligning the list with contemporary clinical practice guidelines. We have identified 4 issues that affect decisions for the EML and may strengthen future applications: 1) cost and cost-effectiveness; 2) presence in clinical practice guidelines; 3) feedback loops; and 4) community engagement. We share our lessons to stimulate others in the global CVD community to embark on similar efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]