Search

Objective: It remains unknown whether patient socioeconomic factors affect interventions and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and whether a socioeconomic effect on bystander interventions affects survival. Therefore, this study examined patient socioeconomic disparities in prehospital factors and survival., Methods: From the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry, patients with OHCA ≥30 years were identified, 2001-2014, and divided into quartiles of household income (highest, high, low, lowest). Associations between income and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 30-day survival with bystander CPR as mediator were analysed by logistic regression and mediation analysis in private witnessed, public witnessed, private unwitnessed and public unwitnessed arrests, adjusted for confounders., Results: We included 21 480 patients. Highest income patients were younger, had higher education and were less comorbid relative to lowest income patients. They had higher odds for bystander CPR with the biggest difference in private unwitnessed arrests (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.05). For 30-day survival, the biggest differences were in public witnessed arrests with 26.0% (95% CI 22.4% to 29.7%) higher survival in highest income compared with lowest income patients. Had bystander CPR been the same for lowest income as for highest income patients, then survival would be 25.3% (95% CI 21.5% to 29.0%) higher in highest income compared with lowest income patients, resulting in elimination of 0.79% (95% CI 0.08% to 1.50%) of the income disparity in survival. Similar trends but smaller were observed in low and high-income patients, the other three subgroups and with education instead of income. From 2002 to 2014, increases were observed in both CPR and survival in all income groups., Conclusion: Overall, lower socioeconomic status was associated with poorer prehospital factors and survival after OHCA that was not explained by patient or cardiac arrest-related factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LK has received lecture fees from Sanofi and Novartis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Significant valve regurgitation is common in patients surviving native valve infective endocarditis (IE), however the associated risk of heart failure (HF) subsequent to hospital discharge after IE is sparsely described., Methods: We linked data from the East Danish Endocarditis Registry with administrative registries from 2002 to 2016 and included patients treated medically for IE who were discharged alive. Left-sided valve regurgitation was assessed by echocardiography at IE discharge and examined for longitudinal risk of HF. Multivariable adjusted Cox analysis was used to assess the associated risk of HF in patients with regurgitation (moderate or severe) compared with patients without regurgitation., Results: We included 192 patients, 87 patients with regurgitation at discharge (30 with aortic regurgitation and 57 with mitral regurgitation) and 105 patients without. The cumulative risk of HF at 5 years of follow-up was 28.7% in patients with regurgitation at IE discharge and 12.4% in patients without regurgitation; the corresponding multivariable adjusted HR was 3.53 (95% CI 1.72 to 7.25). We identified an increased associated risk of HF for patients with aortic regurgitation (HR=2.91, 95% CI 1.14 to 7.43) and mitral regurgitation (HR=3.95, 95% CI 1.80 to 8.67) compared with patients without regurgitation. During follow-up, 21.9% and 5.7% underwent left-sided valve surgery among patients with and without regurgitation., Conclusion: In patients surviving IE, treated medically, we observed that severe or moderate left-sided native valve regurgitation was associated with a significantly higher risk of HF compared with patients without regurgitation at IE discharge. Close monitoring of these patients is needed to initiate surgery timely., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)