Publications

BACKGROUND: The incidence and clinical impact of lead-related venous obstruction (LRVO) among patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is poorly defined.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of symptomatic LRVO after CIED implant; describe patterns in CIED extraction and revascularization; and quantify LRVO-related health care utilization based on each type of intervention.

METHODS: LRVO status was defined among Medicare beneficiaries after CIED implant from October 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020. Cumulative incidence functions of LRVO were estimated by Fine-Gray methods. LRVO predictors were identified using Cox regression. Incidence rates for LRVO-related health care visits were calculated with Poisson models.

RESULTS: Among 649,524 patients who underwent CIED implant, 28,214 developed LRVO, with 5.0% cumulative incidence at maximum follow-up of 5.2 years. Independent predictors of LRVO included CIEDs with >1 lead (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.15), chronic kidney disease (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.14-1.20), and malignancies (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.20-1.27). Most patients with LRVO (85.2%) were managed conservatively. Among 4,186 (14.8%) patients undergoing intervention, 74.0% underwent CIED extraction and 26.0% percutaneous revascularization. Notably, 90% of the patients did not receive another CIED after extraction, with low use (2.2%) of leadless pacemakers. In adjusted models, extraction was associated with significant reductions in LRVO-related health care utilization (adjusted rate ratio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.52-0.66) compared with conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS: In a large nationwide sample, the incidence of LRVO was substantial, affecting 1 of every 20 patients with CIEDs. Device extraction was the most common intervention and was associated with long-term reduction in recurrent health care utilization.

BACKGROUND: High out-of-pocket costs can impede access to guideline-directed cardiovascular drugs. The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will eliminate catastrophic coinsurance and cap annual out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D patients by 2025.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to estimate the IRA's impact on out-of-pocket costs for Part D beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease.

METHODS: The investigators chose 4 cardiovascular conditions that frequently require high-cost guideline-recommended drugs: severe hypercholesterolemia; heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); HFrEF with atrial fibrillation (AF); and cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis. This study included 4,137 Part D plans nationwide and compared projected annual out-of-pocket drug costs for each condition in 2022 (baseline), 2023 (rollout), 2024 (5% catastrophic coinsurance eliminated), and 2025 ($2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs).

RESULTS: In 2022, mean projected annual out-of-pocket costs were $1,629 for severe hypercholesterolemia, $2,758 for HFrEF, $3,259 for HFrEF with AF, and $14,978 for amyloidosis. In 2023, the initial IRA rollout will not significantly change out-of-pocket costs for the 4 conditions. In 2024, elimination of 5% catastrophic coinsurance will lower out-of-pocket costs for the 2 costliest conditions: HFrEF with AF ($2,855, 12% reduction) and amyloidosis ($3,468, 77% reduction). By 2025, the $2,000 cap will lower out-of-pocket costs for all 4 conditions to $1,491 for hypercholesterolemia (8% reduction), $1,954 for HFrEF (29% reduction), $2,000 for HFrEF with AF (39% reduction), and $2,000 for cardiac transthyretin amyloidosis (87% reduction).

CONCLUSIONS: The IRA will reduce Medicare beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs for the selected cardiovascular conditions by 8% to 87%. Future studies should assess the IRA's impact on adherence to guideline-directed cardiovascular therapies and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We assess the rates of device use and outcomes by race among patients undergoing lower extremity peripheral arterial intervention using the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry-Peripheral Vascular Intervention (PVI) registry.

METHODS: Patients who underwent PVI between April 2014 and March 2019 were included. Socioeconomic status was evaluated using the Distressed Community Index score for patients' zip codes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with utilization of drug-eluting technologies, intravascular imaging, and atherectomy. Among patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, we compared 1-year mortality, rates of amputation, and repeat revascularizations.

RESULTS: Of 63 150 study cases, 55 719 (88.2%) were performed in White patients and 7431 (11.8%) in Black patients. Black patients were younger (67.9 versus 70.0 years), had higher rates of hypertension (94.4% versus 89.5%), diabetes (63.0% versus 46.2%), less likely to be able to walk 200 m (29.1% versus 24.8%), and higher Distressed Community Index scores (65.1 versus 50.6). Black patients were provided drug-eluting technologies at a higher rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.06-1.23]) with no difference in atherectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.91-1.05]) or intravascular imaging (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.88-1.22]) use. Black patients experienced a lower rate of acute kidney injury (adjusted odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.72-0.88]). In Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked analyses of 7429 cases (11.8%), Black patients were significantly less likely to have surgical (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.17-0.96]) or repeat PVI revascularization (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.30-0.59]) at 1 year compared with White patients. There was no difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [0.8-1.4]) or major amputation (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.8-7.6]) between Black and White patients.

CONCLUSIONS: Black patients presenting for PVI were younger, had higher prevalence of comorbidities and lower socioeconomic status. After adjustment, Black patients were less likely to have surgical or repeat PVI revascularization after the index PVI procedure.

IMPORTANCE: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure (HF) prevalence are rising in the US. Although glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) improve outcomes for these conditions, high out-of-pocket costs may be associated with reduced medication adherence.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year adherence to GLP1-RA and SGLT2i therapies by prescription co-payment level in individuals with T2D and/or HF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study used deidentified data from Optum Insight's Clinformatics Data Mart Database of enrollees with commercial and Medicare health insurance plans. Individuals aged 18 years or older with T2D and/or HF who had a prescription claim for a GLP1-RA or SLGT2i from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2020, were included.

EXPOSURES: Prescription co-payment, categorized as low (<$10), medium ($10 to<$50), and high (≥$50).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was medication adherence, defined as a proportion of days covered (PDC) of 80% or greater at 1 year. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between co-payment and adherence, adjusting for patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and socioeconomic factors.

RESULTS: A total of 94 610 individuals (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [11.4] years; 51 226 [54.1%] male) were prescribed GLP1-RA or SGLT2i therapy. Overall, 39 149 individuals had a claim for a GLP1-RA, of whom 25 557 (65.3%) had a PDC of 80% or greater at 1 year. In fully adjusted models, individuals with a medium (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.67) or high (AOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.44-0.51) co-payment were less likely to have a PDC of 80% or greater with a GLP1-RA compared with those with a low co-payment. Overall, 51 072 individuals had a claim for an SGLT2i, of whom 37 339 (73.1%) had a PDC of 80% or greater at 1 year. Individuals with a medium (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.63-0.72) or high (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.63-0.72) co-payment were less likely to have a PDC of 80% or greater with an SGLT2i compared with those with a low co-payment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of individuals with T2D and/or HF, 1-year adherence to GLP1-RA or SGLT2i therapies was highest among individuals with a low co-payment. Improving adherence to guideline-based therapies may require interventions that reduce out-of-pocket prescription costs.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.