Publications

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.

IMPORTANCE: Black adults with heart failure (HF) disproportionately experience higher population-level mortality than White adults with HF. Whether quality of care for HF differs at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals is unknown.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality and outcomes for patients with HF at hospitals with high proportions of Black patients vs other hospitals.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients hospitalized for HF at Get With The Guidelines (GWTG) HF sites from January 1, 2016, through December 1, 2019. These data were analyzed from May 2022 through November 2022.

EXPOSURES: Hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quality of HF care based on 14 evidence-based measures, overall defect-free HF care, and 30-day readmissions and mortality in Medicare patients.

RESULTS: This study included 422 483 patients (224 270 male [53.1%] and 284 618 White [67.4%]) with a mean age of 73.0 years. Among 480 hospitals participating in GWTG-HF, 96 were classified as hospitals with high proportions of Black patients. Quality of care was similar between hospitals with high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals for 11 of 14 GWTG-HF measures, including use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors for left ventricle systolic dysfunction (high-proportion Black hospitals: 92.7% vs other hospitals: 92.4%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.65-1.27), evidence-based β-blockers (94.7% vs 93.7%; OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.28), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors at discharge (14.3% vs 16.8%; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02), anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation/flutter (88.8% vs 87.5%; OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.76-1.45), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator counseling/placement/prescription at discharge (70.9% vs 71.0%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.50-1.13). Patients at high-proportion Black hospitals were less likely to be discharged with a follow-up visit made within 7 days or less (70.4% vs 80.1%; OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86), receive cardiac resynchronization device placement/prescription (50.6% vs 53.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95), or an aldosterone antagonist (50.4% vs 53.5%; OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.97). Overall defect-free HF care was similar between both groups of hospitals (82.6% vs 83.4%; OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19) and there were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients. Among Medicare beneficiaries, the risk-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for 30-day readmissions was higher at high-proportion Black vs other hospitals (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02-1.26), but similar for 30-day mortality (HR 0.92; 95% CI,0.84-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Quality of care for HF was similar across 11 of 14 measures at hospitals caring for high proportions of Black patients compared with other hospitals, as was overall defect-free HF care. There were no significant within-hospital differences in quality for Black patients vs White patients.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary guidelines emphasize the value of incorporating frailty into clinical decision-making regarding revascularization strategies for coronary artery disease. Yet, there are limited data describing the association between frailty and longer-term mortality among coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients.

METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2016-2020, 40 VA medical centers) of US veterans nationwide that underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Frailty was quantified by the Veterans Administration Frailty Index (VA-FI), which applies the cumulative deficit method to render a proportion of 30 pertinent diagnosis codes. Patients were classified as non-frail (VA-FI ≤ 0.1), pre-frail (0.1 < VA-FI ≤ 0.2), or frail (VA-FI > 0.2). We used Cox proportional hazards models to ascertain the association of frailty with all-cause mortality. Our primary study outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality; the co-primary outcome was days alive and out of the hospital within the first postoperative year.

RESULTS: There were 13,554 CABG patients (median 69 years, 79% White, 1.5% women). The mean pre-operative VA-FI was 0.21 (SD: 0.11); 31% were pre-frail (VA-FI: 0.17) and 47% were frail (VA-FI: 0.31). Frail patients were older and had higher co-morbidity burdens than pre-frail and non-frail patients. Compared with non-frail patients (13.0% [11.4, 14.7]), there was a significant association between frail and pre-frail patients and increased cumulative 5-year all-cause mortality (frail: 24.8% [23.3, 26.1]; HR: 1.75 [95% CI 1.54, 2.00]; pre-frail 16.8% [95% CI 15.3, 18.4]; HR 1.2 [1.08,1.34]). Compared with non-frail patients (mean 362[SD 12]), pre-frail (mean 361 [SD 14]; p < 0.01) and frail patients (mean 358[SD 18]; p < 0.01) spent fewer days alive and out of the hospital in the first postoperative year.

CONCLUSIONS: Pre-frailty and frailty were prevalent among US veterans undergoing CABG and associated with worse mid-term outcomes. Given the high prevalence of frailty with attendant adverse outcomes, there may be an opportunity to improve outcomes by identifying and mitigating frailty before surgery.

IMPORTANCE: Adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2-I) to standard-of-care treatment in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) reduces the risk of a composite outcome of worsening heart failure or cardiovascular mortality, but the cost-effectiveness in US patients with HFpEF is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of standard therapy plus an SGLT2-I compared with standard therapy in individuals with HFpEF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this economic evaluation conducted from September 8, 2021, to December 12, 2022, a state-transition Markov model simulated monthly health outcomes and direct medical costs. Input parameters including hospitalization rates, mortality rates, costs, and utilities were extracted from HFpEF trials, published literature, and publicly available data sets. The base-case annual cost of SGLT2-I was $4506. A simulated cohort with similar characteristics as participants of the Empagliflozin in Heart Failure With a Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) and Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced or Preserved Ejection Fraction (DELIVER) trials was used.

EXPOSURES: Standard of care plus SGLT2-I vs standard of care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The model simulated hospitalizations, urgent care visits, and cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death. Future medical costs and benefits were discounted by 3% per year. Main outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), direct medical costs (2022 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SGLT2-I therapy from a US health care sector perspective. The ICER of SGLT2-I therapy was evaluated according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association value framework (high value: <$50 000; intermediate value: $50 000 to <$150 000; and low value: ≥$150 000).

RESULTS: The simulated cohort had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (9.5) years and 6828 of 12 251 participants (55.7%) were male. Standard of care plus SGLT2-I increased quality-adjusted survival by 0.19 QALYs at an increased cost of $26 300 compared with standard of care. The resulting ICER was $141 200 per QALY gained, with 59.1% of 1000 probabilistic iterations indicating intermediate value and 40.9% indicating low value. The ICER was most sensitive to SGLT2-I costs and effect of SGLT2-I therapy on cardiovascular death (eg, increasing to $373 400 per QALY gained if SGLT2-I therapy was assumed to have no effect on mortality).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this economic evaluation suggest that at 2022 drug prices, adding an SGLT2-I to standard of care was of intermediate or low economic value compared with standard of care in US adults with HFpEF. Efforts to expand access to SGLT2-I for individuals with HFpEF should be coupled with efforts to lower the cost of SGLT2-I therapy.