Contemporary NSTEMI management: the role of the hospitalist.

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is defined as elevated cardiac biomarkers of necrosis in the absence of persistent ST-segment elevation in the setting of anginal symptoms or other acute event. It carries a poorer prognosis than most ST-segment elevation events, owing to the typical comorbidity burden of the older NSTEMI patients as well as diverse etiologies that add complexity to therapeutic decision-making. It may result from an acute atherothrombotic event (\u27Type 1\u27) or as the result of other causes of mismatch of myocardial oxygen supply and demand (\u27Type 2\u27). Regardless of type and other clinical factors, the hospital medicine specialist is increasingly responsible for managing or coordinating the care of these patients. Following published guidelines for risk stratification and basing anti-anginal, anticoagulant, antiplatelet, other pharmacologic therapies, and overall management approach on that individualized patient risk assessment can be expected to result in better short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including near-term readmission and recurrent events. We present here a review of the evidence basis and expert commentary to assist the hospitalist in achieving those improved outcomes in NSTEMI. Given that the Society for Hospital Medicine cites care of patients with acute coronary syndrome as a core competency for hospitalists, it is essential that those specialists stay current on optimal NSTEMI care

Following the migration of glass eel and three-spined stickleback passing Europe’s largest pumping station and world’s largest sluice

In order to quantify abundance, to study migration behaviour and to evaluate different fish passages along a 26 km long canal (North Sea Canal) in the Netherlands, a mark recapture experiment was carried out by tagging 6750 glass eel (Anguilla anguilla), 625 three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) caught in marine environment and 625 three-spined stickleback caught in brackish environment in spring 2018. To reach the canal, migratory fish must pass a large complex of four large sea sluices, spill gates and Europe’s largest pumping station. Twenty five groups could be distinguished using different combinations of fluorescent colours of Visible Implant Elastomer Tags. The majority of the marked fish were released at the sea side and just behind a large tidal barrier (each group: 2000 glass eel and 500 stickleback). In addition, different groups of both species were caught and released locally at different sites along the canal to evaluate fish passage efficiency. Fish were recaptured in an extensive netting program of volunteers along the canal, twelve especially designed glass eel monitoring devices and professional fisherman who monitored fish passages along pumping stations or sluices. Stickleback originally caught in brackish environment showed higher recapture rate (7.6%) compared to stickleback caught in the marine environment (2.8%). Also, fastest average migration speed was estimated on 0.09 m/s and migratory delay at the tidal barrier was limited since difference groups were recaptured in comparable ratio’s and migration speeds. Glass eel were recaptured along almost all monitoring locations along the canal. Fastest, average migration speed was estimated at 0.02 m/s and the furthermost recapture was 28 km from release site after 26 days (average speed 0.01 m/s). Migratory delay at the tidal barrier seemed limited, however some individuals were caught after 23 days at the sea side and others were flushed out by the spill gates

Effectiveness and safety in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants in US healthcare claims

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of real-world studies examining the risks of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients switching from warfarin to a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). This retrospective study was conducted to compare the stroke/SE and MB risks between patients switched from warfarin to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban in real-world clinical practice.MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data from four United States commercial claims databases from January 1, 2012 to June 30, 2019. The study population included NVAF patients initially treated with warfarin and switched to apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban within 90 days of their warfarin prescription ending. Patients were matched 1:1 between the DOACs in each database using propensity scores and then pooled for the final analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate the risk of stroke/SE and MB.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The final population consisted of 2,611 apixaban-dabigatran, 12,165 apixaban-rivaroxaban, and 2,672 dabigatran-rivaroxaban pairs. Apixaban vs. dabigatran was associated with a lower risk of stroke/SE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.96) and MB (HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91). Apixaban vs. rivaroxaban was associated with a similar risk of stroke/SE (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07) and a lower risk of MB (HR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.52-0.68). There was no significant difference in either risk between dabigatran and rivaroxaban. These results provide important insights into how the risks of stroke/SE and MB for NVAF patients vary when switching from warfarin to different DOACs.</p

Effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients with prior bleeding events:a retrospective analysis of administrative claims databases

INTRODUCTION: There are a paucity of real-world data examining effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients with prior bleeding.METHODS: This retrospective analysis included data from 5 insurance claims databases and included NVAF patients prescribed OACs with prior bleeding. One-to-one propensity score matching was conducted between NOACs and warfarin and between NOACs in each database. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and MB.RESULTS: A total of 244,563 patients (mean age 77; 50% female) with prior bleeding included 55,094 (22.5%) treated with apixaban, 12,500 (5.1%) with dabigatran, 38,246 (15.6%) with rivaroxaban, and 138,723 (56.7%) with warfarin. Apixaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.70, 0.83]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71, 0.87]) had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. warfarin. Apixaban (HR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and dabigatran (HR: 0.88 [95% CI: 0.81, 0.96]) had a lower risk of MB vs. warfarin. Apixaban patients had a lower risk of stroke/SE vs. dabigatran (HR: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.57, 0.86]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76, 0.96]) and a lower risk of MB than dabigatran (HR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.67, 0.81]) and rivaroxaban (HR: 0.64 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.68]).CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of a large sample of NVAF patients with prior bleeding, NOACs were associated with similar or lower risk of stroke/SE and MB vs. warfarin and variable risk of stroke/SE and MB against each other.</p

Assessment of a Crowdsourcing Open Call for Approaches to University Community Engagement and Strategic Planning During COVID-19

Importance: Reimagining university life during COVID-19 requires substantial innovation and meaningful community input. One method for obtaining community input is crowdsourcing, which involves having a group of individuals work to solve a problem and then publicly share solutions. Objective: To evaluate a crowdsourcing open call as an approach to COVID-19 university community engagement and strategic planning. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study assessed a crowdsourcing open call offered from June 16 to July 16, 2020, that sought ideas to inform safety in the fall 2020 semester at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Digital methods (email and social media) were used for promotion, and submissions were collected online for 4 weeks. Participation was open to UNC students, staff, faculty, and others. Main Outcomes and Measures: Submissions were evaluated for innovation, feasibility, inclusivity, and potential to improve safety and well-being. Demographic data were collected from submitting individuals, and submissions were qualitatively analyzed for emergent themes on challenges with and solutions for addressing safety and well-being in the fall semester. Data were shared with UNC leadership to inform decision-making. Results: The open call received 82 submissions from 110 participants, including current UNC students (56 submissions [68%]), people younger than 30 years (67 [82%]), women (55 [67%]), and individuals identifying as a racial/ethnic minority or as multiracial/ethnic (49 [60%]). Seven submissions were identified as finalists and received cash prizes with the encouragement to use these funds toward idea development and implementation. Seventeen runner-up teams were linked to university resources for further development. Thematic analysis of submissions regarding challenges with the fall semester revealed not only physical health concerns and the limitations of remote learning but also challenges that have been exacerbated by the pandemic, such as a lack of mental health support, structural racism and inequality, and insufficient public transportation. Solutions included novel ideas to support mental health among specific populations (eg, graduate students and racial/ethnic minorities), improve health equity, and increase transit access. All 24 finalists and runners-up indicated interest in implementation after being notified of the open call results. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that open calls are a feasible strategy for university community engagement on COVID-19, providing a stakeholder-driven approach to identifying promising ideas for enhancing safety and well-being. Open calls could be formally incorporated into university planning processes to develop COVID-19 safety strategies that are responsive to diverse community members' concerns

Oral Anticoagulants for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with High Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

IMPORTANCE: Many patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) are at a high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to conditions including older age; stage III to V chronic kidney disease (CKD); HAS-BLED (hypertension, kidney or liver disease, stroke history, prior bleeding, unstable international normalized ratio, age >65, drug or alcohol use) score of 3 or greater; corticosteroid, antiplatelet or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use; or GI conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of stroke and/or systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding (MB) among patients with NVAF and high risk of GI bleeding who received non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) vs those who received warfarin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with NVAF who were 75 years and older; had stage III to V CKD; had an HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater; used corticosteroids, antiplatelets, or NSAIDs; or had GI conditions. Data were collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and 4 commercial insurance databases between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2015. Data analysis was conducted from January 2012 to September 2015. EXPOSURES: New prescription for apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin between January 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015 (identification period). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Six propensity score–matched cohorts were created to compare between study drugs. For the primary objective, Cox models were used to estimate stroke and/or SE and MB hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: A total of 381 054 patients (187 489 [49.2%] women) with NVAF and at least 1 high-risk GI bleeding factor were identified (HAS-BLED score ≥3: 284 527 [74.7%]; aged ≥75 years: 252 835 [66.4%]; corticosteroid, antiplatelet, or NSAID therapy: 107 675 [28.3%]; prior GI bleeding conditions: 74 818 [19.6%]; and stage III-V CKD: 56 892 [14.9%]). All NOACs were associated with a lower risk of stroke and/or SE vs warfarin (apixaban: HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.52-0.68; dabigatran: HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.88; rivaroxaban: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86). Compared with warfarin, apixaban and dabigatran were associated with a lower risk of MB (apixaban: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.56-0.63; dabigatran: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.86), while rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study of patients with NVAF and high risk of GI bleed, NOACs were associated with lower rates of stroke and/or SE, but NOACs had varying risks of MB compared with warfarin. These results may help inform treatment options in this patient population

Burden of major gastrointestinal bleeding among oral anticoagulant-treated non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients

BackgroundGastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common type of major bleeding associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) treatment. Patients with major bleeding are at an increased risk of a stroke if an OAC is not reinitiated.MethodsNon-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating OACs were identified from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare data and four US commercial claims databases. Patients who had a major GI bleeding event (hospitalization with primary diagnosis of GI bleeding) while on an OAC were selected. A control cohort of patients without a major GI bleed during OAC treatment was matched to major GI bleeding patients using propensity scores. Stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, and mortality (in the CMS population) were examined using Cox proportional hazards models with robust sandwich estimates.ResultsA total of 15,888 patients with major GI bleeding and 833,052 patients without major GI bleeding were included in the study. Within 90 days of the major GI bleed, 58% of patients discontinued the initial OAC treatment. Patients with a major GI bleed had a higher risk of stroke/SE [hazard ratio (HR): 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-1.74], major bleeding (HR: 2.79, 95% CI: 2.64-2.95), and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.23-1.36) than patients without a major GI bleed.ConclusionPatients with a major GI bleed on OAC had a high rate of OAC discontinuation and significantly higher risk of stroke/SE, major bleeding, and mortality after hospital discharge than those without. Effective management strategies are needed for patients with risk factors for major GI bleeding