Search

Limited English proficiency (LEP) is defined as individuals in whom English is not the primary language and who have limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand the English language. Cardiovascular (CV) team members routinely encounter language barriers in their practice. These barriers have a significant impact on the quality of CV care that patients with LEP receive. Despite evidence demonstrating the negative association between language barriers and health disparities, the impact on CV care is insufficiently known. In addition, older adults with CV disease and LEP are facing increasing risk of adverse events when complex medical information is not optimally delivered. Overcoming language barriers in CV care will need a thoughtful approach. Although well recognized, the initial step will be to continue to highlight the importance of language needs identification and appropriate use of professional interpreter services. In parallel, a health system-level approach is essential that describes initiatives and key policies to ensure a high-level quality of care for a growing LEP population. This review aims to present the topic of LEP during the CV care of older adults, for continued awareness along with practical considerations for clinical use and directions for future research.

Diagnostic and therapeutic advances during the past decades have substantially improved health outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Both age-related physiological changes and accumulated cardiovascular risk factors increase the susceptibility to acute coronary syndrome over a lifetime. Compared with younger patients, outcomes for acute coronary syndrome in the large and growing demographic of older adults are relatively worse. Increased atherosclerotic plaque burden and complexity of anatomic disease, compounded by age-related cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbid conditions, contribute to the worse prognosis observed in older individuals. Geriatric syndromes, including frailty, multimorbidity, impaired cognitive and physical function, polypharmacy, and other complexities of care, can undermine the therapeutic efficacy of guidelines-based treatments and the resiliency of older adults to survive and recover, as well. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we (1) review age-related physiological changes that predispose to acute coronary syndrome and management complexity; (2) describe the influence of commonly encountered geriatric syndromes on cardiovascular disease outcomes; and (3) recommend age-appropriate and guideline-concordant revascularization and acute coronary syndrome management strategies, including transitions of care, the use of cardiac rehabilitation, palliative care services, and holistic approaches. The primacy of individualized risk assessment and patient-centered care decision-making is highlighted throughout.

BackgroundTo facilitate evidence-based medicine (EBM) on an individual level, it may be important for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to incorporate the performance parameters of diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions (such as likelihood ratio and absolute benefit or harm), and to incorporate relevant patient contexts that may influence decision-making. We sought to determine the extent to which heart failure CPGs currently incorporate this information.MethodsWe reviewed the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) 2013 Heart Failure CPG, the 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 Heart Failure CPG. We abstracted variables for each CPG recommendation from the following domains: quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, diagnostic and therapeutic performance parameters, and patient context.ResultsWe examined 169 recommendations from the ACCF/AHA 2013 CPGs and 2017 update and 187 recommendations from the 2016 ESC CPGs. Performance parameters for diagnostic studies (2013 ACCF/AHA: 13%; 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update: 0%; 2016 ESC: 0%) and therapeutic interventions (2013 ACCF/AHA: 65%; 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update: 64%; 2016 ESC: 16%) were not commonly included in CPGs. Patient context was included in about half of ACCF/AHA recommendations and a quarter of ESC recommendations.ConclusionsThe majority of recommendations from heart failure CPGs lack information on diagnostic and therapeutic performance parameters and patient context. Given the importance of these components to effectively implement EBM, particularly for a heterogeneous heart failure population, innovative strategies are needed to optimize CPGs so they provide comprehensive yet succinct recommendations that can improve population-level outcomes and ensure optimal patient-centered care.

Whereas the burgeoning population of older adults is intrinsically vulnerable to cardiovascular disease, the utility of many management precepts that were validated in younger adults is often unclear. Whereas biomarker- and imaging-based tests are a major part of cardiovascular disease care, basic assumptions about their use and efficacy cannot be simply extrapolated to many older adults. Biology, physiology, and body composition change with aging, with important influences on cardiovascular disease testing procedures and their interpretation. Furthermore, clinical priorities of older adults are more heterogeneous, potentially undercutting the utility of testing data that are collected. The American College of Cardiology and the National Institutes on Aging, in collaboration with the American Geriatrics Society, convened, at the American College of Cardiology Heart House, a 2-day multidisciplinary workshop, "Diagnostic Testing in Older Adults with Cardiovascular Disease," to address these issues. This review summarizes key concepts, clinical limitations, and important opportunities for research.

Background/objectivesGuideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAmbulatory.ParticipantsRandom sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.MeasurementsElectronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.ResultsIn each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.

ObjectivesTo identify the top priority areas for research to optimize pharmacotherapy in older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD).DesignConsensus meeting.SettingMultidisciplinary workshop supported by the National Institute on Aging, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Geriatrics Society, February 6-7, 2017.ParticipantsLeaders in the Cardiology and Geriatrics communities, (officers in professional societies, journal editors, clinical trialists, Division chiefs), representatives from the NIA; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, pharmaceutical industry, and trainees and early career faculty with interests in geriatric cardiology.MeasurementsSummary of workshop proceedings and recommendations.ResultsTo better align older adults' healthcare preferences with their care, research is needed to improve skills in patient engagement and communication. Similarly, to coordinate and meet the needs of older adults with multiple comorbidities encountering multiple healthcare providers and systems, systems and disciplines must be integrated. The lack of data from efficacy trials of CVD medications relevant to the majority of older adults creates uncertainty in determining the risks and benefits of many CVD therapies; thus, developing evidence-based guidelines for older adults with CVD is a top research priority. Polypharmacy and medication nonadherence lead to poor outcomes in older people, making research on appropriate prescribing and deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy and methods to improve adherence to beneficial therapies a priority.ConclusionThe needs and circumstances of older adults with CVD differ from those that the current medical system has been designed to meet. Optimizing pharmacotherapy in older adults will require new data from traditional and pragmatic research to determine optimal CVD therapy, reduce polypharmacy, increase adherence, and meet person-centered goals. Better integration of the multiple systems and disciplines involved in the care of older adults will be essential to implement and disseminate best practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:371-380, 2019.

Multimorbidity occurs in adults of all ages, but the number and complexity of comorbid conditions commonly increase with advancing age such that cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older adults typically occurs in a context of multimorbidity. Current clinical practice and research mainly target single disease-specific care that does not embrace the complexities imposed by concurrent conditions. In this paper, emerging concepts regarding CVD in combination with multimorbidity are reviewed, including recommendations for incorporating multimorbidity into clinical decision making, critical knowledge gaps, and research priorities to optimize care of complex older patients.

Historically, the medical subspecialties have not focused on the needs of older adults. This has changed with the implementation of initiatives to integrate geriatrics and aging research into the medical and surgical subspecialties and with the establishment of a home for internal medicine specialists within the annual American Geriatrics Society (AGS) meeting. With the support of AGS, other professional societies, philanthropies, and federal agencies, efforts to integrate geriatrics into the medical and surgical subspecialties have focused largely on training the next generation of physicians and researchers. They have engaged several subspecialties, which have followed parallel paths in integrating geriatrics and aging research. As a result of these combined efforts, there has been enormous progress in the integration of geriatrics and aging research into the medical and surgical subspecialties, and topics once considered to be geriatric concerns are becoming mainstream in medicine, but this integration remains a work in progress and will need to adapt to changes associated with healthcare reform.

Longevity is increasing and the population of older adults is growing. The biology of aging is conducive to cardiovascular disease (CVD), such that prevalence of coronary artery disease, heart failure, valvular heart disease, arrhythmia and other disorders are increasing as more adults survive into old age.  Furthermore, CVD in older adults is distinctive, with management issues predictably complicated by multimorbidity, polypharmacy, frailty and other complexities of care that increase management risks (e.g., bleeding, falls, and rehospitalization) and uncertainty of outcomes.  In this review, state-of-the-art advances in heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, transcatheter aortic valve replacement, atrial fibrillation, amyloidosis, and CVD prevention are discussed.  Conceptual benefits of treatments are considered in relation to the challenges and ambiguities inherent in their application to older patients.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is the leading cause for hospital readmission. Hospice care may help palliate HF symptoms but its association with 30-day all-cause readmission remains unknown.Methods and resultsOf the 8032 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF in 106 Alabama hospitals (1998-2001), 182 (2%) received discharge hospice referrals. Of the 7850 patients not receiving hospice referrals, 1608 (20%) died within 6 months post discharge (the hospice-eligible group). Propensity scores for hospice referral were estimated for each of the 1790 (182+1608) patients and were used to match 179 hospice-referral patients with 179 hospice-eligible patients who were balanced on 28 baseline characteristics (mean age, 79 years; 58% women; 18% non-white). Overall, 22% (1742/8032) died in 6 months, of whom 8% (134/1742) received hospice referrals. Among the 358 matched patients, 30-day all-cause readmission occurred in 5% and 41% of hospice-referral and hospice-eligible patients, respectively (hazard ratio associated with hospice referral, 0.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.24). Hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for 30-day all-cause readmission associated with hospice referral among the 126 patients who died and 232 patients who survived 30-day post discharge were 0.03 (0.04-0.21) and 0.17 (0.08-0.36), respectively. Although 30-day mortality was higher in the hospice referral group (43% versus 27%), it was similar at 90 days (64% versus 67% among hospice-eligible patients).ConclusionsA discharge hospice referral was associated with lower 30-day all-cause readmission among hospitalized patients with HF. However, most patients with HF who died within 6 months of hospital discharge did not receive a discharge hospice referral.

BackgroundThe prevalence of atrial fibrillation substantially increases after 70 years of age. However, the effect of rate-control versus rhythm-control strategies on outcomes in these patients remains unclear.MethodsIn the randomized Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) trial, 4060 patients (mean age 70 years, range 49-80 years) with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation were randomized to rate-control versus rhythm-control strategies. Of these, 2248 were 70-80 years, of whom 1118 were in the rate-control group. Propensity scores for rate-control strategy were estimated for each of the 2248 patients and were used to assemble a cohort of 937 pairs of patients receiving rate-control versus rhythm-control strategies, balanced on 45 baseline characteristics.ResultsMatched patients had a mean age of 75 years; 45% were women, 7% were nonwhite, and 47% had prior hospitalizations due to arrhythmias. During 3.4 years of mean follow-up, all-cause mortality occurred in 18% and 23% of matched patients in the rate-control and rhythm-control groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] associated with rate control, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.94; P = .010). HRs (95% CIs) for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular mortality associated with rate control were 0.88 (0.65-1.18) and 0.62 (0.46-0.84), respectively. All-cause hospitalization occurred in 61% and 68% of rate-control and rhythm-control patients, respectively (HR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.68-0.86). HRs (95% CIs) for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular hospitalization were 0.66 (0.56-0.77) and 1.07 (0.91-1.27), respectively.ConclusionIn septuagenarian patients with atrial fibrillation, compared with rhythm-control, a rate-control strategy was associated with significantly lower mortality and hospitalization.