Objectives

The aim of this study was to determine whether frailty is associated with increased bleeding risk in the setting of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Background

Frailty is a common syndrome in older adults.

Methods

Frailty was examined among AMI patients ≥65 years of age treated at 775 U.S. hospitals participating in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry from January 2015 to December 2016. Frailty was classified on the basis of impairments in 3 domains: walking (unassisted, assisted, wheelchair/nonambulatory), cognition (normal, mildly impaired, moderately/severely impaired), and activities of daily living. Impairment in each domain was scored as 0, 1, or 2, and a summary variable consisting of 3 categories was then created: 0 (fit/well), 1 to 2 (vulnerable/mild frailty), and 3 to 6 (moderate-to-severe frailty). Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the independent association between frailty and bleeding.

Results

Among 129,330 AMI patients, 16.4% had any frailty. Frail patients were older, more often female, and were less likely to undergo cardiac catheterization. Major bleeding increased across categories of frailty (fit/well 6.5%; vulnerable/mild frailty 9.4%; moderate-to-severe frailty 9.9%; p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent catheterization, both frailty categories were independently associated with bleeding risk compared with the non-frail group (vulnerable/mild frailty adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 1.44; moderate-to-severe frailty adjusted OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.58). Among patients managed conservatively, there was no association of frailty with bleeding (vulnerable/mild frailty adjusted OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.19; moderate-to-severe frailty adjusted OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.81 to 1.14).

Conclusions

Frail patients had lower use of cardiac catheterization and higher risk of major bleeding (when catheterization was performed) than nonfrail patients, making attention to clinical strategies to avoid bleeding imperative in this population.

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.

Limited English proficiency (LEP) is defined as individuals in whom English is not the primary language and who have limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand the English language. Cardiovascular (CV) team members routinely encounter language barriers in their practice. These barriers have a significant impact on the quality of CV care that patients with LEP receive. Despite evidence demonstrating the negative association between language barriers and health disparities, the impact on CV care is insufficiently known. In addition, older adults with CV disease and LEP are facing increasing risk of adverse events when complex medical information is not optimally delivered. Overcoming language barriers in CV care will need a thoughtful approach. Although well recognized, the initial step will be to continue to highlight the importance of language needs identification and appropriate use of professional interpreter services. In parallel, a health system-level approach is essential that describes initiatives and key policies to ensure a high-level quality of care for a growing LEP population. This review aims to present the topic of LEP during the CV care of older adults, for continued awareness along with practical considerations for clinical use and directions for future research.

Background Knowledge is scarce regarding how multimorbidity is associated with therapeutic decisions regarding oral anticoagulants (OACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results We conducted a cross-sectional study of hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation using the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry from 2013 to 2019. We identified patients ≥65 years and eligible for OAC therapy. Using 16 available comorbidity categories, patients were stratified by morbidity burden. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the odds of receiving OAC prescription at discharge by morbidity burden. We included 34 174 patients with a median (interquartile range) age of 76 (71-83) years, 56.6% women, and 41.9% were not anticoagulated at admission. Of these patients, 38.6% had 0 to 2 comorbidities, 50.7% had 3 to 5 comorbidities, and 10.7% had ≥6 comorbidities. The overall discharge OAC prescription was high (85.6%). The prevalence of patients with multimorbidity increased from 59.7% in 2014 to 64.3% in 2019 (P trend=0.002). Using 0 to 2 comorbidities as the reference, the adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of OAC prescription were 0.93 (0.82, 1.05) for patients with 3 to 5 comorbidities and 0.72 (0.60, 0.86) for patients with ≥6 comorbidities. In those with ≥6 comorbidities, the most common reason for nonprescription of OACs were frequent falls/frailty (31.0%). Conclusions In a contemporary quality-of-care database of hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation eligible for OAC therapy, multimorbidity was common. A higher morbidity burden was associated with a lower odds of OAC prescription. This highlights the need for interventions to improve adherence to guideline-recommended anticoagulation in multimorbid patients with atrial fibrillation.

Diagnostic and therapeutic advances during the past decades have substantially improved health outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndrome. Both age-related physiological changes and accumulated cardiovascular risk factors increase the susceptibility to acute coronary syndrome over a lifetime. Compared with younger patients, outcomes for acute coronary syndrome in the large and growing demographic of older adults are relatively worse. Increased atherosclerotic plaque burden and complexity of anatomic disease, compounded by age-related cardiovascular and noncardiovascular comorbid conditions, contribute to the worse prognosis observed in older individuals. Geriatric syndromes, including frailty, multimorbidity, impaired cognitive and physical function, polypharmacy, and other complexities of care, can undermine the therapeutic efficacy of guidelines-based treatments and the resiliency of older adults to survive and recover, as well. In this American Heart Association scientific statement, we (1) review age-related physiological changes that predispose to acute coronary syndrome and management complexity; (2) describe the influence of commonly encountered geriatric syndromes on cardiovascular disease outcomes; and (3) recommend age-appropriate and guideline-concordant revascularization and acute coronary syndrome management strategies, including transitions of care, the use of cardiac rehabilitation, palliative care services, and holistic approaches. The primacy of individualized risk assessment and patient-centered care decision-making is highlighted throughout.

Background

In the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality in comparison with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular end points was myocardial infarction (MI).

Methods

ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite end points of the trial be analyzed using 2 MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used creatine kinase-MB as the preferred biomarker, whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times the upper reference level for percutaneous coronary intervention and >10 times for coronary artery bypass grafting. Procedural MI definitions included (1) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds, (2) new ST-segment depression of ≥1 mm for the primary and ≥0.5 mm for the secondary definition, and (3) new coronary dissections >National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions.

Results

Procedural MIs accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (2.7% versus 1.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98 [95% CI, 1.87-4.73]) and secondary (8.2% versus 2.0%; adjusted HR, 5.04 [95% CI, 3.64-6.97]) MI definitions. Type 1 MIs were less frequent with the invasive versus conservative strategy using the primary (3.40% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) and secondary (3.48% versus 6.89%; adjusted HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.41-0.69]; P<0.0001) definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI than after no MI using the primary (adjusted HR, 3.38 [95% CI, 2.03-5.61]; P<0.001) or secondary MI definition (adjusted HR, 3.52 [2.11-5.88]; P<0.001).

Conclusions

In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and with the use of the secondary MI definition. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.