Background Social and environmental factors play an important role in the rising health care burden of cardiovascular disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) from US census data as a tool for public health officials to identify communities in need of support in the setting of a hazardous event. SVI (ranging from a least vulnerable score of 0 to a most vulnerable score of 1) ranks communities on 15 social factors including unemployment, minoritized groups status, and disability, and groups them under 4 broad themes: socioeconomic status, housing and transportation, minoritized groups, and household composition. We sought to assess the association of SVI with self‐reported prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Methods and Results We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of adults (≥18 years) in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2016 to 2019. Data regarding self‐reported prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities (including diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, substance use), and ASCVD was captured using participants' response to a structured telephonic interview. We divided states on the basis of the tertile of SVI (first—participant lives in the least vulnerable group of states, 0–0.32; to third—participant lives in the most vulnerable group of states, 0.54–1.0). Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, race and ethnicity, sex, employment, income, health care coverage, and association with federal poverty line were constructed to assess the association of SVI with cardiovascular comorbidities. Our study sample consisted of 1 745 999 participants ≥18 years of age. States in the highest (third) tertile of social vulnerability had predominantly Black and Hispanic adults, lower levels of education, lower income, higher rates of unemployment, and higher rates of prevalent comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hyperlipidemia, substance use, and ASCVD. In multivariable logistic regression models, individuals living in states in the third tertile of SVI had higher odds of having hypertension (odds ratio (OR), 1.14 [95% CI, 1.11–1.17]), diabetes (OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.09–1.15]), hyperlipidemia (OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.06–1.12]), chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.12–1.23]), smoking (OR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.03–1.07]), and ASCVD (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.12–1.19]), compared with those living in the first tertile of SVI. Conclusions SVI varies across the US states and is associated with prevalent cardiovascular comorbidities and ASCVD, independent of age, race and ethnicity, sex, employment, income, and health care coverage. SVI may be a useful assessment tool for health policy makers and health systems researchers examining multilevel influences on cardiovascular‐related health behaviors and identifying communities for targeted interventions pertaining to social determinants of health.

No abstract

ImportanceThe management of aortic valve disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation (AR), in younger adult patients (age <65 years) is complex, and the optimal strategy is often unclear, contingent on multiple anatomic and holistic factors.ObservationsTraditional surgical approaches carry significant considerations, including compulsory lifelong anticoagulation for patients who receive a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the risk of structural valvular deterioration and need for subsequent valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR. These factors are magnified in young adults who are considering pregnancy, for whom issues of anticoagulation and valve longevity are heightened. The Ross procedure has emerged as a promising alternative; however, its adoption is limited to highly specialized centers. Valve repair is an option for selected patients with AR. These treatment options offer varying degrees of durability and are associated with different risks and complications, especially for younger adult patients. Patient-centered care from a multidisciplinary valve team allows for discussion of the optimal timing of intervention and the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options.Conclusions and RelevanceThe management of severe aortic valve disease in adults younger than 65 years is complex, and there are numerous considerations with each management decision. While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards of care, other options are emerging for selected patients but are not yet generalizable beyond specialized surgical centers. A detailed discussion by members of the multidisciplinary heart team and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects millions of Americans each year and can lead to high levels of resource utilization through emergency department (ED) visits and inpatient stays. Hypothesis We hypothesized that referral of patients to a dedicated Center for AF from the ED would reduce costs of care. Methods The University of Pittsburgh Center for AF serves as a rapid referral center for patients with AF to avoid unnecessary inpatient admissions and provide specialized care. Patients that presented to the ED with AF and met prespecified criteria were directed to rapid outpatient follow‐up instead of inpatient admission. The primary outcome of interest was 30‐day total costs. Secondary outcomes included outpatient costs, inpatient costs, 90‐day costs, and inpatient stay characteristics. Results We identified 96 patients (median age 65, 38% women) referred to the center for AF for a new diagnosis of AF between October 2017 and December 2019 and matched 96 control patients. After 30 days of follow‐up, patients referred to the center for AF had a lower average cost ($619 vs. $1252, p < 0.001) compared to controls, driven by lower costs of ED care tempered by slightly higher outpatient costs. Thirty‐day admissions and lengths of stay were also lower. These differences were persistent at 90 days. Conclusion Directing patients with AF that present to the ED to follow‐up at a dedicated Center for AF significantly reduced overall costs, while reducing subsequent inpatient admissions and total lengths of stay in the hospital.