Racial Disparities in Invasive Management for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction With Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: Due to increased risks of contrast nephropathy, chronic kidney disease (CKD) can deter consideration of invasive management for patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Black patients have a higher prevalence of CKD. Whether racial disparities exist in the use of invasive MI management for patients with CKD presenting with MI is unknown. Methods: We examined 717 012 White and 99 882 Black patients with MI treated from 2008 to 2017 at 914 hospitals in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain—MI Registry. CKD status was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥90 mL/(min·1.73 m 2 ; no CKD), eGFR <90 but ≥60 (mild), eGFR <60 but ≥30 (moderate), and eGFR <30 or dialysis (severe). We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the interaction of race and CKD severity in invasive MI management. Results: Among those with MI, Black patients were more likely than White patients to have CKD (eGFR <90; 61.4% versus 58.5%; P <0.001). Among those with MI and CKD, Black patients were more likely than White patients to have severe CKD (21.2% versus 12.4%; P <0.001). Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have diabetes or heart failure; Black patients with CKD were more likely to have these comorbidities when compared with White patients with CKD (all P <0.0001). Black race and CKD were associated with a lower likelihood of invasive management (adjusted odds ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.75–0.81]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.70–0.74]; P <0.001 for both). At eGFR levels ≥10, Black patients were significantly less likely than White patients to undergo invasive management. Conclusions: Black patients with MI and mild or moderate CKD were less likely to undergo invasive management compared with White patients with similar CKD severity. National efforts are needed to address racial disparities that may remain in the invasive management of MI.

Minimally invasive management of large duodenal lipoma: endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objective This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of large duodenal lipomas (DLs) of ≥2 cm between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). Methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of large DLs from June 2017 to March 2021 at our hospital. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, and follow-up endoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed. Results Twenty-three patients (12 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years were included. The median tumor size was 28.4 ± 13.3 mm. ESD was performed in 19 patients, and EFTR was performed in 4. Complete resection was achieved in 21 patients. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ESD than EFTR group. Four patients in the EFTR group developed a fever; no other adverse events occurred. No patients required surgical intervention. During the average follow-up of 21.1 months, no residual tumor, recurrence, or metastasis was observed. Conclusion Both ESD and EFTR provide minimally invasive, localized treatment of selected DLs. ESD might have some advantages in resecting large DLs in terms of procedure time and hospitalization.

The Importance of Nodule Size in the Management of Ruptured Thyroid Nodule After Radiofrequency Ablation: A Retrospective Study and Literature Review

BackgroundNodule rupture is a relatively uncommon yet severe complication of radiofrequency ablation (RFA). When nodule rupture occurs, determining suitable therapeutic management is a critical issue. A study herein aimed to identify the predictive factors affecting the management of post-RFA nodule rupture.MethodsPost-RFA nodule rupture data of 9 patients were enrolled from 2 medical centers. A literature investigation was performed, uncovering nodule rupture data of 17 patients. A total of 26 patients were analyzed and divided into two groups, categorized as patients requiring either invasive or conservative therapeutic management. Data including initial symptoms, imaging, therapeutic management, and prognosis were reviewed and compared between the two groups.ResultsSignificant differences in nodule diameter, and the ablation time of the course prior to rupture (RUP time) were noted between the two groups (p = 0.045 and 0.008, respectively). Logistic regression analysis indicated the initial nodule diameter and RUP time significantly affected the requirement of invasive treatment (OR 1.99 and 1.11, respectively). Considering practicality, when a nodule with an initial maximum diameter of &gt;4.5cm ruptured, invasive management was suggested (sensitivity 69% and specificity 79%).ConclusionThough nodule ruptures can be managed conservatively, a ruptured nodule with an initial maximum diameter of &gt;4.5cm may require invasive management. Understanding the significant clinical and imaging features will help physicians make an appropriate risk assessment to determine the correct treatment in a timely manner.

The impact of frailty on the management and outcome of ST-elevation myocardial infarction in older patients

Background Frailty is a clinical syndrome of increased vulnerability, resulting from age-associated decline in physiological reserve, compromising the ability to cope with acute stressors. Despite an increasing number of older, frail patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), there remains a paucity of guidance on how to approach the management of this complex group. Purpose To evaluate the impact of frailty on the management strategy and outcomes in older patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed, using linked patient records in The Nationwide Readmission Database. All patients aged ≥75 years that presented with STEMI (2015 – 2018) were included. International Classification of Disease (10th Edition; ICD-10) codes were used to ascertain exposures and outcomes. Frailty was quantified using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS): an ICD-10-based scoring system that has been validated against established clinical frailty indices. Outcomes included: (i) management strategy (coronary angiography ± percutaneous coronary intervention, vs. conservative management), length of stay and 30-day mortality. Outcomes were modelled using multivariable binary logistic regression. Continuous variables are presented as: mean (standard deviation). Odds ratios (OR) are given with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results From an overall dataset of 57,133,894 admissions, 368,201 patients presenting with STEMI were identified, of which 92,067 were aged ≥75 years. The mean age was 82.4 (5.1) years; 45,768 (49.7%) were female. The mean frailty score was 5.9 (SD 4.9, range 0 - 37.7). Patients were categorised by frailty status: low (HFRS &lt;5; n=46,336 [50.3%]), intermediate (HFRS 5 - 15; n=40,493 [44.0%]) and high risk (HFRS &gt;15; n=5,238 [5.7%]). Characteristics of the cohort are presented in Figure 1. Frail patients were less likely to undergo invasive management: 1,873 (35.5%) of the high risk group underwent coronary angiography vs. 36,888 (79.6%) of the low risk group; OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.13 - 0.15), P&lt;0.001. Length of stay in hospital increased proportionately with frailty: a 2-unit increase in HRFS was associated with one additional day in hospital (p&lt;0.001). 30-day mortality increased non-linearly with increasing HFRS and was markedly higher among patients at high risk for frailty, compared with those at low risk; OR 3.70 (95% CI 3.47 - 3.94; p&lt;0.001). The relationship between frailty score and outcomes is presented in Figure 2. Frailty remained the greatest single predictor of outcome following adjustment for other covariates, including age. Conclusions Frail patients presenting with STEMI are less likely to undergo invasive management and more likely to experience adverse outcomes. Quantification of frailty offers an opportunity to identify and address modifiable risk factors to improve post-STEMI outcomes in this vulnerable group. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.