Individuals with established cardiovascular disease or a high burden of cardiovascular risk factors may be particularly vulnerable to develop complications from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a prospective cohort study at a tertiary care center to identify risk factors for in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, new acute decompensated heart failure, venous thromboembolism, ventricular or atrial arrhythmia, pericardial effusion, or aborted cardiac arrest) among consecutively hospitalized adults with COVID-19, using multivariable binary logistic regression analysis. The study population comprised 586 COVID-19 positive patients. Median age was 67 (IQR: 55-80) years, 47.4% were female, and 36.7% had cardiovascular disease. Considering risk factors, 60.2% had hypertension, 39.8% diabetes, and 38.6% hyperlipidemia. Eighty-two individuals (14.0%) died in-hospital, and 135 (23.0%) experienced MACE. In a model adjusted for demographic characteristics, clinical presentation, and laboratory findings, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.28 per 5 years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-1.45), prior ventricular arrhythmia (OR, 18.97; 95% CI, 3.68-97.88), use of P2Y 12 -inhibitors (OR, 7.91; 95% CI, 1.64-38.17), higher C-reactive protein (OR, 1.81: 95% CI, 1.18-2.78), lower albumin (OR, 0.64: 95% CI, 0.47-0.86), and higher troponin T (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.39-2.46) were associated with mortality (p<0.05). After adjustment for demographics, presentation, and laboratory findings, predictors of MACE were higher respiratory rates, altered mental status, and laboratory abnormalities, including higher troponin T (p<0.05). In conclusion, poor prognostic markers among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 included older age, pre-existing cardiovascular disease, respiratory failure, altered mental status, and higher troponin T concentrations.

Background Previous studies examining the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) have largely focused on patients newly initiating therapy. Little is known about the prevalence/patterns of switching to DOACs among AF patients initially treated with warfarin. Hypothesis To examine patterns of anticoagulation among patients chronically managed with warfarin upon the availability of DOACs and identify patient/practice‐level factors associated with switching from chronic warfarin therapy to a DOAC. Methods Prospective cohort study of AF patients in the NCDR PINNACLE registry prescribed warfarin between May 1, 2008 and May 1, 2015. Patients were followed at least 1 year (median length of follow‐up 375 days, IQR 154‐375) through May 1, 2016 and stratified as follows: continued warfarin, switched to DOAC, or discontinued anticoagulation. To identify significant predictors of switching, a three‐level multivariable hierarchical regression was developed. Results Among 383 008 AF patients initially prescribed warfarin, 16.3% (n = 62 620) switched to DOACs, 68.8% (n = 263 609) continued warfarin, and 14.8% (n = 56 779) discontinued anticoagulation. Among those switched, 37.6% received dabigatran, 37.0% rivaroxaban, 24.4% apixaban, and 1.0% edoxaban. Switched patients were more likely to be younger, women, white, and have private insurance (all P < .001). Switching was less likely with increased stroke risk (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.91‐0.93 per 1‐point increase CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc), but more likely with increased bleeding risk (OR, 1.12; 95%CI, 1.10‐1.13 per 1‐point increase HAS‐BLED). There was substantial variation at the practice‐level (MOR, 2.33; 95%CI, 2.12‐2.58) and among providers within the same practice (MOR, 1.46; 95%CI, 1.43‐1.49). Conclusions Among AF patients treated with warfarin between October 1, 2010 and May 1, 2016, one in six were switched to DOACs, with differences across sociodemographic/clinical characteristics and substantial practice‐level variation. In the context of current guidelines which favor DOACs over warfarin, these findings help benchmark performance and identify areas of improvement.

Introduction In many neurology residency programs, outpatient neurology subspecialties are underrepresented. Trainee exposure to these subspecialties, including movement disorders, is limited by paucity and variability of clinical experiences. We designed a structured educational tool to address this variability and allow for standardization of elements of movement disorders teaching. Methods We designed and implemented a web-based curriculum in movement disorders for neurology housestaff, in order to improve participant knowledge. The curriculum includes an introduction with a structured framework for the description of abnormal movements and 10 interactive modules focusing on common movement disorders. The curriculum was piloted with nine neurology housestaff at Yale-New Haven Hospital. Evaluation of the curriculum was performed using pre- and post-tests, a survey, and semi-structured interviews. Results The mean pre-test score was 0.7 (±0.19), and the mean post-test score was 0.95 (±0.05) ( t = 3.27). Surveys demonstrated mean Likert values >4/5 for all questions in all categories (knowledge acquisition, quantity, enthusiasm and technical). Semi-structured interviews revealed the following themes: 1) the modules increased participant comfort with the topic, 2) the format was engaging, and 3) the curriculum accommodated different learning styles. All participants remarked that the structured framework was a particular strength. Conclusion We have created, implemented, and evaluated a foundational curriculum in movement disorders for neurology trainees, using readily-available technology. Housestaff responded positively to the curriculum, both in terms of content and format. This curriculum can be implemented in a variety of educational settings, as a central component of a standardized approach to movement disorders teaching.

Introduction Although both obesity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) independently induce inflammation and thrombosis, the association between obesity class and risk of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 remains unclear. Methods This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a single institution. Patients were categorized based on obesity class. The main outcomes were venous thromboembolism (VTE) and myocardial injury, a marker of microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19. Adjustments were made for sociodemographic variables, cardiovascular disease risk factors and comorbidities. Results 609 patients with COVID-19 were included. 351 (58%) patients were without obesity, 110 (18%) were patients with class I obesity, 76 (12%) were patients with class II obesity, and 72 (12%) were patients with class III obesity. Patients with class I and III obesity had significantly higher risk-adjusted odds of VTE compared to patients without obesity (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.05–6.14 for class I obesity; and OR = 3.95, 95% CI: 1.40–11.14 for class III obesity). Patients with class III obesity had significantly higher risk-adjusted odds of myocardial injury compared to patients without obesity (OR = 2.15, 95% CI: 1.12–4.12). Both VTE and myocardial injury were significantly associated with greater risk-adjusted odds of mortality. Conclusion This study demonstrates that both macrovascular and microvascular thromboses may contribute to the elevated morbidity and mortality in patients with obesity and COVID-19.

No abstract

Introduction: The prevalence and outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter (AF/FL) remains unclear. Methods: The Yale Cardiovascular COVID Registry is a cohort study of adult patients >=18 years hospitalized with COVID-19 in the Yale New Haven Health System. Retrospective medical record review was performed on consecutive patients from the registry admitted between March and June 2020. We calculated the rates of prior and in-hospital AF/FL and evaluated the unadjusted rates of in-hospital adverse events for both groups; we then calculated the adjusted odds of adverse events using logistic regression. Results: Among 396 patients, the mean age was 68.2, 52.3% were men, 56.4% were Caucasian, 28.4% Black and 16.9% Hispanic. 15.7% of patients had prior history of AF/FL. 19.9% of patients had in-hospital AF/FL, 7.83% of which did not have a prior history of AF/FL. Patients with in-hospital AF/FL had significantly more CV complications compared to those without including cardiac injury (78.5% vs 42.7%, p=0.000), type 2 myocardial infarction (53.3 vs 30.3%, p=0.002), and heart failure (32.9% vs 9.2%, p=0.000). In-hospital AF/FL was associated with significantly worse outcomes related to COVID-19 including ICU survival (OR 0.22 [0.08-0.59], p=0.002), heart failure (5.19 [2.56-10.5], p=0.000), myocardial injury (OR 2.87 [1.49-5.49], p=0.001), acute kidney injury (OR 2.02 [1.09-3.74], p=0.027), dialysis (OR 4.07 [1.38-12.03], p=0.011) and hospice/death (OR 2.47 [1.35-4.53], p=0.004). Conclusion: AF/FL are common in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and these patients had significantly worse outcomes, including lower odds of ICU survival and higher odds of heart failure, acute kidney injury, dialysis and hospice/death.

Background: Little is known regarding how well the U.S. News & World Report “Top-Ranked Hospitals for Cardiology and Heart Surgery” rankings reflect performance on key measures such as thirty-day risk-standardized mortality, readmissions, and payment. Methods: We used publicly available US News and World Report rankings of the top 50 best hospitals from 2014 to 2017 to stratify hospitals into ranked and unranked hospitals and utilized data from Medicare’s Hospital Compare database. Risk-standardized measures for payments, mortality rates, and readmission rates for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and Heart Failure (HF) in ranked and unranked hospitals were compared using two-tailed t-tests. Results: There were n=66 ranked hospitals and n=1846 unranked hospitals included in the analysis. As compared with unranked hospitals, top ranked hospitals had significantly lower thirty-day mortality rates for both AMI and HF (p<.001 for both; Table 1). There were no differences in thirty-day readmission rates. Thirty-day payments were significantly higher for top ranked hospitals for AMI (2014 and 2015) and HF (2015) over the study period. Conclusion: We found that US News and World Report “Best Hospitals” performed significantly better on mortality measures but not on readmission measures. While payment in ranked hospitals may have been significantly higher in 2014 and 2015, greater increases in payments of unranked hospitals closed the gap between payments in ranked and unranked hospitals. As cost-efficiency is an important component of hospital performance, future research should explore how “Best Hospitals” are keeping costs down, and future ranking algorithms should incentivize decreased payments.

Introduction: COVID-19 has emerged as a global health crisis resulting in nearly half a million deaths worldwide to date. Patients with COVID-19 experience significant cardiovascular manifestations including myocardial injury. We sought to determine the risk of myocardial injury within 24 hours of admission on all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at a major academic medical center between March 1, 2020-June 1, 2020. The combination of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) elevation (defined as ≥0.01 ng/mL) within 24 hours of admission and an elevated NT-proBNP (defined as >450.0 pg/mL) on admission were used as biomarker surrogates for myocardial injury. Results: There were n = 415 consecutive patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 with a median age of 68.5 years (IQR 58-81), 44.8% were women, a median BMI of 28.8 (IQR 24.6-35.6), 5.8% of patients had end-stage renal disease on dialysis, 21.6% had a prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease and 21.8% had a prior diagnosis of congestive heart failure. Among patients with at least one positive cTnT level within 24 hours of admission, the median cTnT level was 0.04 ng/mL (IQR 0.01-0.77 ng/mL). Among those with elevated BNP, the median BNP was 1930 pg/mL (IQR 799-5826 pg/mL) on admission. Patients with COVID-19 who had an elevation in both cardiac biomarkers on admission had higher all-cause mortality than patients with COVID-19 who had negative biomarkers (38.2% vs. 7.5%, respectively, p-value < 0.001), with nearly a 5-fold increase in mortality when adjusted for age, gender, BMI and renal dysfunction (adjusted OR 4.9, p-value: 0.003, 95% CI 1.7-13.9, See Figure) Conclusion: Myocardial injury is common in patients with COVID-19 and is associated with a significantly increased risk of death. Cardiac biomarkers on admission can serve as prognostic factors and may guide early management of COVID-19.