Clinical Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared to SBP of ≤ 140 mm Hg (standard treatment); however, it is unclear if this effect is similar in all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We analyzed SPRINT data within non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic subgroups to address this question. High-risk nondiabetic hypertensive patients (N = 9,361; 30% NHB; 11% Hispanic) 50 years and older were randomly assigned to intensive or standard treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of a myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or CVD death. RESULTS: Average postbaseline SBP was similar among NHW, NHB, and Hispanics in both treatment arms. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) (intensive vs. standard treatment groups) for primary outcome were 0.70 (0.57–0.86), 0.71 (0.51–0.98), 0.62 (0.33–1.15) (interaction P value = 0.85) in NHW, NHB, and Hispanics. CVD mortality HRs were 0.49 (0.29–0.81), 0.77 (0.37–1.57), and 0.17 (0.01–1.08). All-cause mortality HRs were 0.61 (0.47–0.80), 0.92 (0.63–1.35), and 1.58 (0.73–3.62), respectively. A test for differences among racial/ethnic groups in the effect of treatment assignment on all-cause mortality was not significant (Hommel-adjusted P value = 0.062) after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Targeting a SBP goal of ≤ 120 mm Hg compared to ≤ 140 mm Hg led to similar SBP control and was associated with similar benefits and risks among all racial ethnic groups, though NHBs required an average of ~0.3 more medications

Hispanic health in the USA: a scoping review of the literature

Hispanics are the largest minority group in the USA. They contribute to the economy, cultural diversity, and health of the nation. Assessing their health status and health needs is key to inform health policy formulation and program implementation. To this end, we conducted a scoping review of the literature and national statistics on Hispanic health in the USA using a modified social-ecological framework that includes social determinants of health, health disparities, risk factors, and health services, as they shape the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. These social, environmental, and biological forces have modified the epidemiologic profile of Hispanics in the USA, with cancer being the leading cause of mortality, followed by cardiovascular diseases and unintentional injuries. Implementation of the Affordable Care Act has resulted in improved access to health services for Hispanics, but challenges remain due to limited cultural sensitivity, health literacy, and a shortage of Hispanic health care providers. Acculturation barriers and underinsured or uninsured status remain as major obstacles to health care access. Advantageous health outcomes from the “Hispanic Mortality Paradox” and the “Latina Birth Outcomes Paradox” persist, but health gains may be offset in the future by increasing rates of obesity and diabetes. Recommendations focus on the adoption of the Health in All Policies framework, expanding access to health care, developing cultural sensitivity in the health care workforce, and generating and disseminating research findings on Hispanic health

Is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?’ A total of 50 papers were found using the reported search, of which, 11 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, country, journal, date of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All 11 papers were retrospective studies, from which 4 were case–control studies comparing the minimally invasive approach with conventional full sternotomy, and 7 were case series. There were two minimally invasive techniques used, a right mini-thoracotomy and a partial hemi-sternotomy, the former being the most commonly used. The resection of benign cardiac masses is a low-risk procedure, with no mortality or conversions to full sternotomy reported. From the 4 case–control studies, cross-clamp time was similar in both groups, and only one report found a prolonged perfusion time with the minimally invasive approach. The incidence of major postoperative complications, including bleeding requiring reoperation (average from case–control studies: 0–4.5 vs 0–5.8%), renal failure (0 vs 0–10%) and prolonged ventilation (6–13 vs 11–19%), for the two approaches was similar. The incidence of postoperative stroke was better for the minimally invasive approach in one study (0 vs 14%, P = 0.023). The main advantages of this technique are shorter intensive care unit (26–31 vs 46–60 h) and hospital stay (3.6–5.2 vs 6.2–7.4 days), the minimally invasive approach being significantly better in one and three reports, respectively. We conclude that minimally invasive resection of a benign cardiac mass using a right mini-thoracotomy approach can be performed with an operative morbidity and mortality at least similar to the standard full sternotomy approach. The information currently available for the minimally invasive approach for the resection of benign cardiac masses is limited and based only on retrospective studies and, therefore, prospective studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery