Publications

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in heart failure (HF) care have sought to shift management from inpatient to outpatient and observation settings. We evaluated the association among HF treatment in the (1) inpatient; (2) observation; (3) emergency department (ED); and (4) outpatient settings with 30-day mortality, hospitalizations and cost.

METHODS: Using 100% Medicare inpatient, outpatient and Part B files from 2011-2018, 1,534,708 unique patient encounters in which intravenous (IV) diuretics were received for a primary diagnosis of HF were identified. Encounters were sorted into mutually exclusive settings: (1) inpatient; (2) observation; (3) ED; or (4) outpatient IV diuretic clinic. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day hospitalization and total 30-day costs. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to examine the association between treatment location and the primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS: Patients treated in observation and outpatient settings had lower 30-day mortality rates (observation OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.66-0.69; P < 0.001; outpatient OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.51-0.55; P < 0.001) compared to those treated in inpatient settings. Observation and outpatient treatment were also associated with decreased 30-day total cost compared to inpatient treatment. Observation relative cost -$5528.77, 95% CI -$5613.63 to -$5443.92; outpatient relative cost -$7005.95; 95% CI -$7103.94 to -$6907.96). Patients treated in the emergency department and discharged had increased mortality rates (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13-1.17; P < 0.001) and increased rates of hospitalization (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.70-1.73; P < 0.001) compared to patients treated as inpatients.

CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries who received IV diuresis for acute HF in the outpatient and observation settings had lower mortality rates and decreased costs of care compared to patients treated as inpatients. Outpatient and observation management of acute decompensated HF, when available, is a safe and cost-effective strategy in certain populations of patients with HF.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS) is enduringly controversial. We updated our 2021 Expert Review and Position Statement, focusing on recent advances in the diagnosis and management of patients with AsxCS.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed up to August 1, 2023, using PubMed/PubMed Central, EMBASE and Scopus. The following keywords were used in various combinations: "asymptomatic carotid stenosis," "carotid endarterectomy" (CEA), "carotid artery stenting" (CAS), and "transcarotid artery revascularization" (TCAR). Areas covered included (i) improvements in best medical treatment (BMT) for patients with AsxCS and declining stroke risk, (ii) technological advances in surgical/endovascular skills/techniques and outcomes, (iii) risk factors, clinical/imaging characteristics and risk prediction models for the identification of high-risk AsxCS patient subgroups, and (iv) the association between cognitive dysfunction and AsxCS.

RESULTS: BMT is essential for all patients with AsxCS, regardless of whether they will eventually be offered CEA, CAS, or TCAR. Specific patient subgroups at high risk for stroke despite BMT should be considered for a carotid revascularization procedure. These patients include those with severe (≥80%) AsxCS, transcranial Doppler-detected microemboli, plaque echolucency on Duplex ultrasound examination, silent infarcts on brain computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography scans, decreased cerebrovascular reserve, increased size of juxtaluminal hypoechoic area, AsxCS progression, carotid plaque ulceration, and intraplaque hemorrhage. Treatment of patients with AsxCS should be individualized, taking into consideration individual patient preferences and needs, clinical and imaging characteristics, and cultural, ethnic, and social factors. Solid evidence supporting or refuting an association between AsxCS and cognitive dysfunction is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: The optimal management of patients with AsxCS should include BMT for all individuals and a prophylactic carotid revascularization procedure (CEA, CAS, or TCAR) for some asymptomatic patient subgroups, additionally taking into consideration individual patient needs and preference, clinical and imaging characteristics, social and cultural factors, and the available stroke risk prediction models. Future studies should investigate the association between AsxCS with cognitive function and the role of carotid revascularization procedures in the progression or reversal of cognitive dysfunction.

IMPORTANCE: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in the US. However, little is known about the association between cumulative environmental burden and cardiovascular health across US neighborhoods.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of neighborhood-level environmental burden with prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, overall and by levels of social vulnerability.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a national cross-sectional study of 71 659 US Census tracts. Environmental burden (EBI) and social vulnerability indices from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry were linked to the 2020 CDC PLACES data set. Data were analyzed from March to October 2023.

EXPOSURES: The EBI, a measure of cumulative environmental burden encompassing 5 domains (air pollution, hazardous or toxic sites, built environment, transportation infrastructure, and water pollution).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Neighborhood-level prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and obesity) and cardiovascular diseases (coronary heart disease and stroke).

RESULTS: Across the US, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden (top EBI quartile) were more likely than those with the lowest environmental burden (bottom EBI quartile) to be urban (16 626 [92.7%] vs 13 414 [75.4%]), in the Midwest (5191 [28.9%] vs 2782 [15.6%]), have greater median (IQR) social vulnerability scores (0.64 [0.36-0.85] vs 0.42 [0.20-0.65]), and have higher proportions of adults in racial or ethnic minority groups (median [IQR], 34% [12-73] vs 12% [5-30]). After adjustment, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors than those with the lowest burden, including hypertension (mean [SD], 32.83% [7.99] vs 32.14% [6.99]; adjusted difference, 0.84%; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98), diabetes (mean [SD], 12.19% [4.33] vs 10.68% [3.27]; adjusted difference, 0.62%; 95% CI, 0.53-0.70), and obesity (mean [SD], 33.57% [7.62] vs 30.86% [6.15]; adjusted difference, 0.77%; 95% CI, 0.60-0.94). Similarly, neighborhoods with the highest environmental burden had significantly higher rates of coronary heart disease (mean [SD], 6.66% [2.15] vs 6.82% [2.41]; adjusted difference, 0.28%; 95% CI, 0.22-0.33) and stroke (mean [SD], 3.65% [1.47] vs 3.31% [1.12]; adjusted difference, 0.19%; 95% CI, 0.15-0.22). Results were consistent after matching highest and lowest environmentally burdened neighborhoods geospatially and based on other covariates. The associations between environmental burden quartiles and cardiovascular risk factors and diseases were most pronounced among socially vulnerable neighborhoods.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of US neighborhoods, cumulative environmental burden was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, although absolute differences were small. The strongest associations were observed in socially vulnerable neighborhoods. Whether initiatives that address poor environmental conditions will improve cardiovascular health requires additional prospective investigations.

OBJECTIVE: Awareness of diabetes as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) may enhance uptake of screening for diabetes and primary prevention of CVD.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The American Heart Association conducted an online survey in 50 countries. The main outcome of this study was the proportion of individuals in each country who recognized diabetes as a CVD risk factor. We also examined variation by sex, age, geographic region, and country-level economic development.

RESULTS: Among 48,988 respondents, 15,747 (32.1%) identified diabetes as a major CVD risk factor. Awareness was similar among men and women, but increased with age, and was greater in high-income than in middle-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of adults in surveyed countries did not recognize diabetes as a major CVD risk factor. Given the increasing global burden of diabetes and CVD, this finding underscores the need for concerted efforts to raise public health awareness.