Introduction:
Although treatment modalities for Atrial Fibrillation (AF) continue to evolve, there is paucity of data on AF management and associated clinical outcomes among Asian Americans (AA). We investigated risk factor profiles, racial disparities in clinical management and associated adverse clinical outcomes among AA compared to Whites.
Hypothesis:
Racial disparities exist between White and AA with regards to AF management and related adverse clinical outcomes.
Methods:
Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR®) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry and linked Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services data to identify AA and White patients with AF between 1/1/13-6/30/18, we characterized risk factors, management strategies (rate vs. rhythm control), anticoagulation use and rates of adverse events across racial groups. The two race groups were compared using hierarchical multivariable adjusted regression models to account for site and potential confounders.
Results:
Our analysis included 1359827 patients with AF (18793 AA; 1341034 Whites). Compared to Whites, AA were more likely to be treated with rate control strategy (OR:1.20, 95% CI:1.15-1.25) in adjusted analyses. AA had lower odds of use of rhythm control strategy (atrial ablations, cardioversions, or use of antiarrhythmic drugs) (OR:0.83, 95% CI:0.80-0.87). Overall use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) and direct oral anticoagulants were similar across both racial groups. There were no significant race-based differences in likelihood of adverse clinical events including all-cause mortality, strokes, and bleeding. Analyses performed using propensity score matching were consistent with the main results.
Conclusions:
AA with AF have a lower likelihood of being managed with rhythm control strategies. Overall use of OAC and AF related adverse events remain similar between the two racial groups.
Background:
The HEART score was developed to predict major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 6 weeks in patients evaluated for chest pain. In the established score, age is scored as <45 years old (y/o) = 0 points, 45-64 y/o = 1 point, and >65 y/o = 2 points. The average age of patients in the original study by Backus et al was 61.2 y/o. Our aim is to evaluate the prognostic value of the HEART score in patients >65 y/o. We hypothesized that elderly patients are at increased risk of MACE unaccounted for by the established age scoring system.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed 668 emergency room visits for chest pain (excluding STEMI) between 2016 to 2018 at a single tertiary, urban medical center. HEART scores were calculated based on presenting data. The primary outcome was MACE (MI, PCI, CABG, or death) within 6 weeks. Patients >65 y/o were stratified to 65-74 y/o, 75-84 y/o, and >85 y/o. Primary outcomes were compared between these age groups. Differences in HEART scores between age groups were controlled by comparing patients within the same HEART score brackets (4-6, 7-8, 9-10). Chi squared analysis was used to determine statistically significant differences in MACE (p<0.01).
Results:
The average age was 60.2 y/o and average HEART score 5.56. There was statistically significant increase in MACE between <45 y/o (18.5%), 45-64 y/o (36.6%), and >65 y/o (47.4%), as outlined by the established HEART score (p<0.01). However, when comparing 65-74 y/o (45.7%), 75-84 y/o (48.8%) and >85 y/o (48.8%), increasing age did not correlate with increasing rate of MACE (p=0.90). When controlled for differences in HEART scores, there was again no statistically significant increase rates of MACE between 65-74 y/o, 75-84y/o, and >85 y/o across all HEART score brackets (4-6, 7-8, 9-10).
Conclusion:
In patients >65 y/o, increasing age did not correlate with increasing rate of MACE refuting our hypothesis. This represents that the other components of the HEART score have greater impact on prognosis than age in this elderly patient population. Our findings support the current age stratification of the established HEART score and show that even in the very elderly, the HEART score adequately accounts for age as a contributor to MACE.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.