Search

Importance: The 2018 Chronic Care Act allowed Medicare Advantage plans to have greater flexibility in offering supplemental benefits, such as meals and services, to address unmet needs of beneficiaries with certain chronic conditions. Based on earlier studies of community-based nutritional support, such programs may result in reduced use., Objective: To evaluate the association of a 4-week posthospitalization home-delivered meals benefit with 30-day all-cause rehospitalization and mortality in patients admitted for heart failure (HF) and other acute medical conditions (non-HF)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, patients who received meals (the meals group) were compared with 2 controls: (1) no meals in the 2019 historical cohort who would have been eligible for the benefit (the no meals-2019 group) and (2) no meals in the 2021 and 2022 concurrent cohort who were referred but did not receive the meals due to unsuccessful contacts and active declines (the no meals-2021/2022 group). This study took place in a large integrated health care system in southern California among Medicare Advantage members with a hospitalization for HF or other acute medical conditions at 15 Kaiser Permanente hospitals discharged to home., Exposure: The exposure was receipt of at least 1 and up to 4 shipments of home-delivered meals (total of 56 to 84 meals) after hospital discharge., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause composite rehospitalization and death., Results: A total of 4032 adults with admission to the hospital for HF (mean [SD] age, 79 [9] years; 1951 [48%] White; 2001 [50%] female) and 7944 with non-HF admissions (mean [SD] age, 78 [8] years; 3890 [49%] White; 4149 [52%] female) were included in the analyses. Unadjusted rates of 30-day death and rehospitalization for the meals, no meals-2019, and no meals-2021/2022 cohorts were as follows: HF: 23.3%, 30.1%, and 38.5%; non-HF: 16.5%, 22.4%, and 32.9%, respectively. For HF, exposure to meals was significantly associated with lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization compared with the no meals-2021/2022 cohort (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.43-0.71; P < .001) but was not significant compared with the no meals-2019 cohort (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72-1.04; P = .12). For non-HF, exposure to meals was associated with significantly lower odds of 30-day death and rehospitalization when compared with the no meals-2019 (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001) and the no meals-2021/2022 (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.62; P < .001) cohorts., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, exposure to posthospitalization home-delivered meals was associated with lower 30-day rehospitalization and mortality; randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Objective: The goal of this study is to determine the strength of association between treatment with triptans and acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death., Background: Case reports in the literature have raised concerns over an association between treatment of migraine headaches with triptans and cardiovascular events. This study aims to systematically evaluate this association in a contemporary population-based cohort. We hypothesized that triptan exposure is not associated with increased cardiovascular events., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted within an integrated healthcare delivery system in Southern California. From January 2009 to December 2018, 189,684 patients age ≥18 years had a diagnosis of migraine. In this group, 130,656 were exposed to triptans. Patients treated with triptans were matched 1:1 to those not exposed to triptans by using a propensity score. The primary outcome was acute myocardial infarction; secondary outcomes were heart failure, all-cause death, and combined acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and death., Results: The incidence rate of acute myocardial infarction was 0.67 per 1000 person-year in triptan-exposed vs 1.44 per 1000 person-year in not exposed patients. In propensity-matched analyses, the adjusted hazard ratio for triptan exposure was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.08) for acute myocardial infarction; 1.00 (95% CI 0.93-1.08) for all-cause death; 0.93 (95% CI 0.81-1.08) for heart failure; and 0.99 (95% CI 0.93-1.06) for a composite of acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or death. Sensitivity analyses focusing on stratified subgroups based on age, gender, ethnicity, and several cardiac risk factors also revealed no significant association between triptan exposure and cardiovascular events., Conclusions: No association was found between exposure to triptans and an increased risk of cardiovascular events. These data provide reassurance regarding the cardiovascular safety of utilizing triptans for the medical management of migraine headaches., (© 2020 American Headache Society.)

Beta blockers reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. Early reports linking β-blockers with depression may have limited their use in heart failure patients with co-morbid depression. Although more recent studies have challenged the association between β-blocker therapy and depression, patient and physicians remain concerned. The goal of this study is to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of β-blocker therapy in heart failure patients with depression. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients at a multicenter integrated healthcare system with a diagnosis of heart failure from 2008 to 2014. Among 6,915 patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction of <50%, 1,252 (18.1%) had a diagnosis of depression. Patients with depression were more likely to be women and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. Depression was associated with decreased odds of β-blocker treatment (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.95; p = 0.016). During a mean follow-up of 2.6 years, 439 (35.1%) patients with depression died compared with 1,549 (27.4%) patients without depression. Depressed patients not treated with β-blocker had higher mortality compared with nondepressed patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.4, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.7, p = 0.005). When treated with β-blockers, their risk of mortality was attenuated (HR 1.1, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.2, p = 0.14). In conclusion, β-blocker therapy remains underutilized in heart failure patients with depression, and its underutilization contributes to the reduced survival rate observed in this cohort., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The goal of this study is to report the prevalence, aetiology and clinical outcome of pregnant women with heart failure., Methods: This is a retrospective community-based cohort study that included pregnant women in the Kaiser Permanente Health System between 2003 and 2014. Women with heart failure were identified using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision codes. Medical records were manually reviewed to confirm diagnosis and adjudicate outcomes., Results: In a cohort of 385 935 pregnancies, 488 (0.13%) had a diagnosis of heart failure, corresponding to 126 cases per 100 000 pregnancies. Peripartum cardiomyopathy was the most common cause of heart failure, accounting for 333 (68.2%) cases. Preterm birth and caesarean delivery were more common in patients with heart failure. Neonatal death rate was higher in the heart failure group (1.0% vs 0.4%, p=0.03). Infants delivered to women with heart failure had lower birth weights (3112.0±774.0 g vs 3331.9±575.5 g, p<0.001) and lower Apgar score at 1 min (7.9±1.5 vs 8.3±1.1, p<0.001). Median follow-up was 6.2 years (IQR 3.2-9.2). During follow-up, 7 (1.4%) in the heart failure group and 423 (0.11%) in the control group died. Heart failure was associated with a 7.7-fold increase risk of death (adjusted HR 7.7, 95% CI 3.6 to 16.4, p<0.001)., Conclusion: Heart failure during pregnancy is associated with unfavourable fetal outcomes including prematurity and low birth weight. While the overall mortality rate was low, pregnant women with heart failure carried an excess risk of death compared with controls., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Randomized trials showed no survival benefit with statin therapy in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Whether these results are generalizable to HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or with mid-range ejection fraction is unclear. In a cohort of 13,440 patients with HF, 9,903 (73.7%) were treated with statins. The association between statin use and all-cause mortality was assessed with Cox proportional hazard regression models and survival time inverse probability weighting propensity scores analyses. Multivariable Poisson regression models with robust error variance were applied to estimate the rate ratios (RR) for hospitalization. The association between statin treatment and clinical outcomes differed by ejection fraction group. In patients with HFpEF, statin use was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66 to 0.81, p <0.001; average treatment effect [ATE] 0.48, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.84, p = 0.007) and reduced all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.89, p <0.001). In contrast, in patients with HFrEF, no significant association was observed between statin use and mortality (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.0, p = 0.054; ATE 0.41, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.93, p = 0.11) or hospitalization (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.04, p = 0.17). Similarly, in patients with mid-range ejection fraction, there was no significant association with reduced mortality (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95, p = 0.02, ATE 0.3, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.43, p = 0.61) or hospitalization (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.27, p = 0.44). In conclusion, statin use was associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF but not in patients with HFrEF or mid-range ejection fraction., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Heart failure is an uncommon diagnosis among pregnant women with limited data on this condition. We sought to describe the characteristics and outcomes of pregnant women with heart failure stratified by etiologies of cardiomyopathy. This is a retrospective population-based cohort study across medical centers in Southern California in the United States. Pregnant women with heart failure were identified using ICD-9 codes and adjudicated by manual review of the medical records. Obstetric complications, fetal birthweight, and maternal mortality outcomes were evaluated. Between 2003 and 2014, there were 488 pregnancies (0.1% of all pregnancies) complicated by heart failure, of which 333 (68.2%) were due to peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) and 155 (31.8%) were due to other etiologies (non-PPCM). Compared to patients with non-PPCM, patients with PPCM were more likely to be Black Americans (26.7% vs 15.5%) or Asian Americans (16.8% vs 7.1%). A high proportion of PPCM patients had preeclampsia (11.1% vs 5.2%, p = 0.04). Infants born to mothers with non-PPCM were more likely to be small for gestational age (SGA) (SGA <3% 4.1% vs 9.7%, p < 0.001; SGA <10% 20% vs 8.8%, p = 0.001). No significant difference in maternal mortality was observed between PPCM and non-PPCM patients. PPCM is the most common etiology of HF during pregnancy. Infants born to mothers with PPCM were likely to be small for gestational age. • Peripartum cardiomyopathy comprised of 68% of heart failure cases in pregnant women. • Pre-eclampsia was more common in patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy • A higher proportion of infants born to mothers with non-peripartum cardiomyopathy were small for gestational age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]