Suchergebnisse

Background-Little is known regarding use of cardiac therapies and clinical outcomes among older myocardial infarction (MI) patients with cognitive impairment. Methods and Results-Patients >= 65 years old with MI in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) Chest Pain-MI Registry between January 2015 and December 2016 were categorized by presence and degree of chart-documented cognitive impairment. We evaluated whether cognitive impairment was associated with all-cause in-hospital mortality after adjusting for known prognosticators. Among 43 812 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, 3.9% had mild and 2.0% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment; among 90 904 non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI patients, 5.7% had mild and 2.6% had moderate/severe cognitive impairment. A statistically significant but numerically small difference in the use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention was observed between patients with STEMI with and without cognitive impairment (none, 92.1% versus mild, 92.8% versus moderate/severe, 90.4%; P=0.03); use of fibrinolysis was lower among patients with cognitive impairment (none, 40.9% versus mild, 27.4% versus moderate/severe, 24.2%; P<0.001). Compared with NSTEMI patients without cognitive impairment, rates of angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass grafting were significantly lower among patients with NSTEMI with mild (41%, 45%, and 70% lower, respectively) and moderate/severe cognitive impairment (71%, 74%, and 93% lower, respectively). After adjustment, compared with no cognitive impairment, presence of moderate/severe (STEW: odds ratio, 2.2, 95% CI, 1.8-2.7; NSTEMI: odds ratio, 1.7, 95% CI, 1.4-2.0) and mild cognitive impairment (STEMI: OR, 1.3, 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; NSTEMI: odds ratio, 1.3, 95% CI, 1.2-1.5) was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Conclusions-Patients with NSTEMI with cognitive impairment are substantially less likely to receive invasive cardiac care, while patients with STEMI with cognitive impairment receive similar primary percutaneous coronary intervention but less fibrinolysis. Presence and degree of cognitive impairment was independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Approaching clinical decision making for older patients with MI with cognitive impairment requires further study. ; American College of Cardiology Foundation's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR); National Institute on AgingUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute on Aging (NIA) [K23 AG052463]; National Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) [R01HL126911, R01HL137734, R01HL137794, R01HL136660, U54HL143541]; National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Heart and Stroke National New Investigator/Ontario Clinician Scientist Award; Government of Ontario Early Researcher AwardMinistry of Research and Innovation, Ontario; Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, University Health Network; Heart and Stroke Richard Lewar Centre of Excellence in Cardiovascular Research, University of TorontoUniversity of Toronto; Women's College Research InstituteUniversity of Toronto; Department of Medicine, Women's College Hospital; Department of Medicine ; Open access journal ; This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.

Fine particulate air pollution <2.5 μm in diameter (PM(2.5)) is a major environmental threat to global public health. Multiple national and international medical and governmental organizations have recognized PM(2.5) as a risk factor for cardiopulmonary diseases. A growing body of evidence indicates that several personal-level approaches that reduce exposures to PM(2.5) can lead to improvements in health endpoints. Novel and forward-thinking strategies including randomized clinical trials are important to validate key aspects (e.g., feasibility, efficacy, health benefits, risks, burden, costs) of the various protective interventions, in particular among real-world susceptible and vulnerable populations. This paper summarizes the discussions and conclusions from an expert workshop, Reducing the Cardiopulmonary Impact of Particulate Matter Air Pollution in High Risk Populations, held on May 29 to 30, 2019, and convened by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health—a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical—not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.