Dataset Information

Secondary prevention medications after coronary artery bypass grafting and long-term survival: a population-based longitudinal study from the SWEDEHEART registry.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To evaluate the long-term use of secondary prevention medications [statins, β-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, and platelet inhibitors] after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the association between medication use and mortality.

Methods and results

All patients who underwent isolated CABG in Sweden from 2006 to 2015 and survived at least 6 months after discharge were included (n = 28 812). Individual patient data from SWEDEHEART and other mandatory nationwide registries were merged. Multivariable Cox regression models using time-updated data on dispensed prescriptions were used to assess associations between medication use and long-term mortality. Statins were dispensed to 93.9% of the patients 6 months after discharge and to 77.3% 8 years later. Corresponding figures for β-blockers were 91.0% and 76.4%, for RAAS inhibitors 72.9% and 65.9%, and for platelet inhibitors 93.0% and 79.8%. All medications were dispensed less often to patients ≥75 years. Treatment with statins [hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.52-0.60], RAAS inhibitors (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.84), and platelet inhibitors (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69-0.81) were individually associated with lower mortality risk after adjustment for age, gender, comorbidities, and use of other secondary preventive drugs (all P < 0.001). There was no association between β-blockers and mortality risk (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90-1.06; P = 0.54).

Conclusion

The use of secondary prevention medications after CABG was high early after surgery but decreased significantly over time. The results of this observational study, with inherent risk of selection bias, suggest that treatment with statins, RAAS inhibitors, and platelet inhibitors is essential after CABG whereas the routine use of β-blockers may be questioned.

SUBMITTER: Bjorklund E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7194184 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The long-term impact of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after coronary artery bypass grafting and the benefit of early-initiated oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with POAF are uncertain. Methods and Results All patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting without preoperative atrial fibrillation in Sweden from 2007 to 2015 were included in a population-based study using data from 4 national registries: SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), National Patient Registry, Dispensed Drug Registry, and Cause of Death Registry. POAF was defined as any new-onset atrial fibrillation during the first 30 postoperative days. Cox regression models (adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and medication) were used to assess long-term outcome in patients with and without POAF, and potential associations between early-initiated OAC and outcome. In a cohort of 24 523 patients with coronary artery bypass grafting, POAF occurred in 7368 patients (30.0%), and 1770 (24.0%) of them were prescribed OAC within 30 days after surgery. During follow-up (median 4.5 years, range 0?9 years), POAF was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.18 [95% CI, 1.05?1.32]), any thromboembolism (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral arterial embolism) (aHR 1.16, 1.05?1.28), heart failure hospitalization (aHR 1.35, 1.21?1.51), and recurrent atrial fibrillation (aHR 4.16, 3.76?4.60), but not with all-cause mortality (aHR 1.08, 0.98?1.18). Early initiation of OAC was not associated with reduced risk of ischemic stroke or any thromboembolism but with increased risk for major bleeding (aHR 1.40, 1.08?1.82). Conclusions POAF after coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with negative prognostic impact. The role of early OAC therapy remains unclear. Studies aiming at reducing the occurrence of POAF and its consequences are warranted.

Project description:Background Over 180 000 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures are performed annually, accounting for $7 to $10 billion in episode expenditures. Assessing tradeoffs between spending and quality contributing to value during 90-day episodes has not been conducted but is essential for success in bundled reimbursement models. We, therefore, identified determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CABG. Methods Medicare and private payor admissions for isolated CABG from 2014 to 2016 were retrospectively linked to clinical registry data for 33 nonfederal hospitals in Michigan. Hospital composite risk-adjusted complication rates (≥1 National Quality Forum-endorsed, Society of Thoracic Surgeons measure: deep sternal wound infection, renal failure, prolonged ventilation >24 hours, stroke, re-exploration, and operative mortality) and 90-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized episode payments were used to categorize hospitals by value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. Results Among 2573 total patients, those at low- versus high-value hospitals had a higher percentage of prolonged length of stay >14 days (9.3% versus 2.4%, P=0.006), prolonged ventilation (17.6% versus 4.8%, P<0.001), and operative mortality (4.8% versus 0.6%, P=0.001). Mean total episode payments were $51 509 at low-compared with $45 526 at high-value hospitals (P<0.001), driven by higher readmission ($3675 versus $2177, P=0.005), professional ($7462 versus $6090, P<0.001), postacute care ($7315 versus $5947, P=0.031), and index hospitalization payments ($33 474 versus $30 800, P<0.001). Among patients not experiencing a complication or 30-day readmission (1923/2573, 74.7%), low-value hospitals had higher inpatient evaluation and management payments ($1405 versus $752, P<0.001) and higher utilization of inpatient rehabilitation (7% versus 2%, P<0.001), but lower utilization of home health (66% versus 73%, P=0.016) and emergency department services (13% versus 17%, P=0.034). Conclusions To succeed in emerging bundled reimbursement programs for CABG, hospitals and physicians should identify strategies to minimize complications while optimizing inpatient evaluation and management spending and use of inpatient rehabilitation, home health, and emergency department services.

Project description:ObjectiveThe Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival.MethodsWe used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty.ResultsIn-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsThe addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.