Search

Background: Patients with left ventricular thrombus are at high risk for ischemic stroke and systemic embolization. The mainstay of treatment is anticoagulation, but it remains unclear if direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a safe and effective treatment strategy compared to warfarin. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DOACs compared to warfarin in an integrated health system in the United States. Methods: Consecutive patients with left ventricular thrombus on transthoracic echocardiogram from May 2010 to April 2020 were identified. Comparative effectiveness and safety of DOACs and warfarin were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models and inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: Among 433 patients with left ventricular thrombus, 134 (30.9%) were treated with DOACs and 299 (69.1%) were treated with warfarin. Patients were followed for a median of 3.4 years. For the primary effectiveness outcome of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and transient ischemic attack, no significant difference was observed between use of DOACs compared to warfarin (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] of 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–1.18, p = 0.21). For the primary safety outcome of intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and other bleed requiring hospitalization, DOAC usage was associated with a lower risk of bleeding (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87, p = 0.0008). Conclusions: In this diverse population-based cohort of patients, DOAC treatment for left ventricular thrombus appears to be as safe and effective as warfarin treatment. These findings support the use of DOACs for patients with left ventricular thrombus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: PPCM is the most common etiology of HF during pregnancy. Infants born to mothers with PPCM were likely to be small for gestational age., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None for all authors., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.)