Search

BACKGROUND: Limited existing data suggest that the novel COVID-19 may increase risk of VTE, but information from large, ethnically diverse populations with appropriate control participants is lacking. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the rate of VTE among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 differ from matched hospitalized control participants without COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and hospitalized adults without evidence of COVID-19 matched for age, sex, race or ethnicity, acute illness severity, and month of hospitalization between January 2020 and August 2020 from two integrated health care delivery systems with 36 hospitals. Outcomes included VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism ascertained using diagnosis codes combined with validated natural language processing algorithms applied to electronic health records) and death resulting from any cause at 30 days. Fine and Gray hazards regression was performed to evaluate the association of COVID-19 with VTE after accounting for competing risk of death and residual differences between groups, as well as to identify predictors of VTE in patients with COVID-19. RESULTS: We identified 6,319 adults with COVID-19 and 6,319 matched adults without COVID-19, with mean ± SD age of 60.0 ± 17.2 years, 46% women, 53.1% Hispanic, 14.6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 10.3% Black. During 30-day follow-up, 313 validated cases of VTE (160 COVID-19, 153 control participants) and 1,172 deaths (817 in patients with COVID-19, 355 in control participants) occurred. Adults with COVID-19 showed a more than threefold adjusted risk of VTE (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% CI, 2.03-5.98) compared with matched control participants. Predictors of VTE in patients with COVID-19 included age ≥ 55 years, Black race, prior VTE, diagnosed sepsis, prior moderate or severe liver disease, BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2, and platelet count > 217 k/μL. INTERPRETATION: Among ethnically diverse hospitalized adults, COVID-19 infection increased the risk of VTE, and selected patient characteristics were associated with higher thromboembolic risk in the setting of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) influences the risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate device therapies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven US healthcare delivery systems. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. MEASUREMENTS: Data on 24 comorbid conditions were captured from electronic health records and categorized into quartiles of comorbidity burden (0‐3, 4‐5, 6‐7 and 8‐16). Incidence of ICD therapies (shock and antitachycardia pacing [ATP] therapies), including appropriateness, was collected for 3 years after implantation. Outcomes included time to first ICD therapy, total ICD therapy burden, and risk of inappropriate vs appropriate ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 2235 patients (mean age = 69 ± 11 years, 75% men), the median number of comorbidities was 6 (interquartile range = 4‐8), with 98% having at least two comorbidities. During a mean 2.2 years of follow‐up, 18.3% of patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy and 9.9% experienced at least one inappropriate therapy. Higher comorbidity burden was associated with an increased risk of first inappropriate therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.14‐3.31] for 4‐5 comorbidities; HR = 2.25 [95% CI = 1.25‐4.05] for 6‐7 comorbidities; and HR = 2.91 [95% CI = 1.54‐5.50] for 8‐16 comorbidities). Participants with 8‐16 comorbidities had a higher total burden of ICD therapy (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.43‐3.16]), a higher burden of inappropriate therapy (RR = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.67‐6.86]), and a higher risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate therapy (RR = 1.74 [95% CI = 1.07‐2.82]). Comorbidity burden was not significantly associated with receipt of appropriate ICD therapies. Patterns were similar when separately examining shock or ATP therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention ICD recipients, MCC burden was independently associated with an increased risk of inappropriate but not appropriate device therapies. Comorbidity burden should be considered when engaging patients in shared decision making about ICD implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have higher risk of sudden cardiac death; however, they may not receive implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), in part due to higher risk of complications. We evaluated whether CKD is associated with greater risk of device-delivered shocks/antitachycardia pacing (ATP) therapies among patients receiving a primary prevention ICD.Methods: We studied participants in the observational Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Outcomes included all delivered shocks/ATPs therapies and type of shock/ATP therapies (inappropriate or appropriate, determined by physician adjudication) within the 3 years. We evaluated the associations between CKD and time to first device therapy, burden of device therapy, and inappropriate versus appropriate device therapy, adjusting for demographics, comorbidity, laboratory values and medication use.Results: Among 2161 participants, 1066 (49.3%) had CKD (eGFR 44±11 mL/min/1.73 m2) at ICD implantation. During mean of 2.26±0.89 years, 9.8% and 18.5% of participants had at least one inappropriate and appropriate shock/ATP therapies, respectively. CKD was not associated with time to first shock/ATP therapies (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05), overall burden of shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative rate 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17) or inappropriate versus appropriate shock/ATP therapies (adjusted relative risk 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14) compared with not having CKD.Conclusions: In adults receiving a primary prevention ICD, mild-to-moderate CKD was not associated with the timing, burden or appropriateness of subsequent device therapy. Potential concern for inappropriate ICD-delivered therapies should not preclude ICDs among eligible patients with CKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Kaiser Permanente ASCVD Risk Estimator (KPARE) was developed to address the systematic overestimation of actual ASCVD risk by the ACC/AHA ASCVD Pooled Cohort Equation (ACC/AHA PCE) in contemporary populations. We evaluated the accuracy and generalizability of KPARE for estimating 10-year ASCVD risk in eligible primary prevention, community-based populations in the U.S. and Canada, as compared with the ACC/AHA PCE. Methods: We identified adults 40-79 years old in 3 contemporary U.S. populations (Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), Southern California (KPSC) and Northwest (KPNW), as well as adults 66-79 years old in Ontario, Canada who had LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL, no known ASCVD, diabetes or lipid-lowering therapy and had complete follow-up. Non-fatal and fatal ASCVD events were ascertained from health system electronic health records and death certificates using validated algorithms. We examined observed ASCVD event rates within deciles of predicted 10-year risk using the KPARE vs. the ACC/AHA PCE predicted risk, and calculated metrics of discrimination and calibration. Results: In eligible primary prevention validation cohorts of KPNC (N=151,409), KPSC (N=246,815), KPNW (N=46,784), and Ontario, Canada (N=60,612 adults), the KPARE showed both better discrimination and calibration (Figure) compared to the ACC/AHA PCE to predict 10-year risk of ASCVD events, with c-statistics of 0.78, 0.78, 0.79, and 0.65, respectively. Categorical net reclassification index showed the KPARE improved ASCVD risk prediction over the ACC/AHA PCE by 23% in the KPNC validation cohort, 24% in KPSC, 33% in KPNW, and 25% in Ontario, Canada. Results were similar when stratified by race-gender subgroups. Conclusions: The new Kaiser Permanente ASCVD Risk Estimator provides more accurate ASCVD risk estimates in various community populations than the ACC/AHA PCE and may provide greater utility in shared decision-making for primary prevention strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Limited data exist on the epidemiology, evaluation, and prognosis of otherwise unexplained anaemia of the elderly in heart failure (HF). Thus, we aimed to determine the incidence of anaemia, to characterize diagnostic testing patterns for potentially reversible causes of anaemia, and to evaluate the independent association between incident anaemia and long-term morbidity and mortality., Methods and Results: Within the Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN), we identified adults age ≥65 years with diagnosed HF between 2005 and 2012 and no anaemia at entry. Incident anaemia was defined using World Health Organization (WHO) haemoglobin thresholds (<13.0 g/dL in men; <12.0 g/dL in women). All-cause death and hospitalizations for HF and any cause were identified from electronic health records. Among 38 826 older HF patients, 22 163 (57.1%) developed incident anaemia over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.9 (1.2-5.6) years. The crude rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] per 100 person-years of incident anaemia was 26.4 (95% CI 26.0-26.7) and was higher for preserved ejection fraction (EF) [29.2 (95% CI 28.6-29.8)] compared with borderline EF [26.5 (95% CI 25.4-27.7)] or reduced EF [26.6 (95% CI 25.8-27.4)]. Iron indices, vitamin B12 level, and thyroid testing were performed in 20.9%, 14.9%, and 40.2% of patients, respectively. Reduced iron stores, vitamin B12 deficiency, and/or hypothyroidism were present in 29.7%, 3.2%, and 18.6% of tested patients, respectively. In multivariable analyses, incident anaemia was associated with excess mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.14, 95% CI 2.07-2.22] as well as hospitalization for HF (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.72-1.88) and any cause (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.72-1.83)., Conclusion: Among older adults with HF, incident anaemia is common and independently associated with substantially increased risks of morbidity and mortality. Additional research is necessary to clarify the value of routine evaluation and treatment of potentially reversible causes of anaemia., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)