Dataset Information

Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Potentially Curable Malignancies : A National Registry Dataset Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although a common challenge for patients and clinicians, there is little population-level evidence on the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in individuals diagnosed with potentially curable cancer.

Objectives

We investigated CVD rates in patients with common potentially curable malignancies and evaluated the associations between patient and disease characteristics and CVD prevalence.

Methods

The study included cancer registry patients diagnosed in England with stage I to III breast cancer, stage I to III colon or rectal cancer, stage I to III prostate cancer, stage I to IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer, stage I to IV diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and stage I to IV Hodgkin lymphoma from 2013 to 2018. Linked hospital records and national CVD databases were used to identify CVD. The rates of CVD were investigated according to tumor type, and associations between patient and disease characteristics and CVD prevalence were determined.

Results

Among the 634,240 patients included, 102,834 (16.2%) had prior CVD. Men, older patients, and those living in deprived areas had higher CVD rates. Prevalence was highest for non-small-cell lung cancer (36.1%) and lowest for breast cancer (7.7%). After adjustment for age, sex, the income domain of the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and Charlson comorbidity index, CVD remained higher in other tumor types compared to breast cancer patients.

Conclusions

There is a significant overlap between cancer and CVD burden. It is essential to consider CVD when evaluating national and international treatment patterns and cancer outcomes. Central Illustration

SUBMITTER: Battisti N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9270631 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model provides financial incentives for practices to lower 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk for high-risk (ASCVD ≥30%) Medicare patients. To estimate average practice-level ASCVD risk reduction, we applied optimal trial outcomes to a real-world population with high ASCVD risk.MethodsThis study uses observational registry data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry from January 2013 to June 2016. We modeled ASCVD risk reductions using historical clinical trial data (reducing cholesterol by 26.5%, reducing systolic blood pressure by 10.9%, reducing smoking rates by 21.8%) the average reduction in ASCVD risk associated with individual and combined risk factor modifications, and then percentage of practices achieving the various incentive thresholds for the Million Hearts Model.ResultsThe final study population included 135 166 patients, with 16 248 (12.0%) with 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥30%, but without existing ASCVD. The mean 10-year ASCVD risk was 41.9% (±1 SD of 11.6). Using risk factor reductions from clinical trials, lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking rates reduced 10-year ASCVD risk by 3.3% (±3.1), 6.3% (±1.1) and 0.5% (±1.3), respectively. Combining all 3 reductions resulted in a 9.7% (±3.6) reduction, with 67 (27.0%) of practices achieving a patient-level average 10-year ASCVD risk reduction of ≥10%, 181 (73.0%) achieving a 2 to 10% reduction, and no practice achieving <2% reduction.ConclusionsIn cardiology practices, about 1 out of 8 patients have a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥30% and qualify as high risk in the Million Hearts Model. If practices target the three main modifiable risk factors and achieve reductions similar to clinical trial results, ASCVD risk could be substantially lowered and all practices could receive incentive payments. These findings support the potential benefit of the Million Hearts Model and provide guidance to participating practices.

Project description:ImportanceCardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces the risk for mortality and heart failure-related events in select patients. Little is known about the use of CRT in combination with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients who are eligible for this therapy in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo (1) identify patient, clinician, and hospital characteristics associated with CRT defibrillator (CRT-D) use and (2) determine the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of CRT-D among guideline-eligible patients undergoing ICD placement.Design, setting, and participantsMulticenter retrospective cohort from 1428 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2014. Adult patients meeting class I or IIa guideline recommendations for CRT at the time of device implantation were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresImplantation of an ICD with or without CRT.ResultsA total of 63 506 eligible patients (88.6%) received CRT-D at the time of device implantation. The mean (SD) ages of those in the ICD and CRT-D groups were 67.9 (12.2) years and 68.4 (11.5) years, respectively. In hierarchical multivariable models, black race was independently associated with lower use of CRT-D (odds ratio [OR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83) as was nonprivate insurance (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.95 for Medicare and OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.82 for Medicaid). Clinician factors associated with greater CRT-D use included clinician implantation volume (OR, 1.01 per 10 additional devices implanted; 95% CI, 1.01-1.01) and electrophysiology training (OR, 3.13 as compared with surgery-boarded clinicians; 95% CI, 2.50-3.85). At the hospital level, the overall median risk-standardized rate of CRT-D use was 79.9% (range, 26.7%-100%; median OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.99-2.18).Conclusions and relevanceIn a national cohort of patients eligible for CRT-D at the time of device implantation, nearly 90% received a CRT-D device. However, use of CRT-D differed by race and implanting operator characteristics. After accounting for these factors, the use of CRT-D continued to vary widely by hospital. Addressing disparities and variation in CRT-D use among guideline-eligible patients may improve patient outcomes.