26
Research
August 2013
Black patients undergo aortic valve replacement significantly less frequently than white patients
A study, published ahead of print in the American Journal of Cardiology, has found that black patients undergo aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis significantly less frequently than white patients and also found that black patients decline surgery more often than white patients
M
ichael Yeung (Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
USA) and others commented that studies have shown that black patients undergo interventions for acute myocardial infarction less frequently than do white patients. Furthermore, a recent study found that black and Hispanic patients have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than white patients. Yeung et al commented: “However, the role of race in forgoing aortic valve replacement has not been previously investigated. We conducted a study with the following aims: to determine if African Americans with severe aortic stenosis underwent aortic valve replacement less frequently than European Americans with severe aortic stenosis and to identify the reasons for this disparity if present.” Using data from a tertiary referral centre, Yeung et al identified patients with severe aortic stenosis (on echocardiogram) and also identified the percentage of patients who were African American and the percentage of patients who were European American. They excluded patients who were neither African American nor European American. The authors also assessed how patients were severe aortic stenosis were managed and reviewed, in patients who were not treated with surgery, the
underwent aortic valve replacement. However, significantly fewer African Americans underwent surgery than European Americans (39% vs. 53%, respectively; p=0.019). Yeung et al also found that compared with patients with severe aortic stenosis who did not undergo surgery, patients who underwent aortic valve replacement had significantly better survival rates at both one and three years. Among those who underwent surgery, there were no significant differences in survival rates following surgery between African Americans and European Americans. The authors noted that this finding indicates that “aortic valve replacement is similarly effective in both groups”. The reasons for not undergoing
Alan Zajarias
reasons for non-surgical management. Of 880 patients with severe aortic stenosis and known treatment status, 791 (90%) were European American and 89 were African American (10%). Although the rates of symptomatic aortic stenosis were similar between racial groups, European Americans complained more frequently of dyspnoea and African Americans had evidence of worse disease severity on echocardiogram. Overall, 51% of patients with severe aortic stenosis
surgery (ranging from advanced age to lack of symptoms) were mostly similar between groups, but African Americans more frequently declined surgery than did European Americans. Yeung et al reported that as previous studies have suggested that cultural preferences influence the decision-making process in cardiac surgery, they may explain why more African Americans declined surgery. They added: “Another explanation for our findings may include poor communication by practitioners, resulting in misunderstanding of the disease process by the patient.”
According to the authors, education and individual counselling to promote awareness and a better understanding of the decision-making process “may level this inequality in treatment.”
While the number of patients who had medical insurance in each group was identical, more European Americans had private medical insurance than had African Americans. Yeung et al said: “It is unclear whether possessing private insurance influenced the decision- making process to undergo aortic valve replacement; however, having private insurance may imply that socioeconomic status does play a role in the decision-making process, independent of the actual cost and ability to pay for the procedure and postdischarge care.”
Study author Alan Zajarias, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, USA, told Cardiovascular News: “Socioeconomic status may influence the ability of patients to fully understand a disease process, treatment options and their implications. This may be one of the reasons leading to the treatment differences seen in the study.”
Novel atherectomy device is effective for severely calcified lesions
According to data presented at EuroPCR (21–24 May, Paris, France), the Orbital atherectomy system device (Cardiovascular Systems) is a safe and effective treatment for de novo severely calcified coronary lesions
P
resenting the results of ORBIT II (Pivotal trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Diamondback 360 degrees Orbital
atherectomy system in treating de novo severely calcified lesions), Jeff Chambers (Cardiac Catheterisation Lab director, Metropolitan Heart and Vascular Institute, Allina Mercy Hospital, Minneapolis, USA) explained that the Orbital atherectomy system device was used to prepare severely calcified de novo coronary lesions for stent placement. He added: “It has a unique mechanism of action. There is
differential orbital sanding. The crown will only sand the hard components of the plaque and the soft components are flexed away from the crown.” For the single-arm, multicentre, Chambers et al enrolled 443 patients with intravascular ultrasound or fluoroscopic evidence of severe calcification and with a target vessel diameter of ≥2.5–≤4mm. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success, which Chambers reported, was defined as: “Success in facilitating stent delivery with a final residual stenosis of <50% and without in-hospital
major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).” The primary safety endpoint was 30-day MACE (including myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularisation, and cardiac death).
Jeff Chambers
He noted that, after the atherectomy procedure, successful stent delivery was achieved in 97.7% of patients and in these patients, 98.6% had less than 50% residual stenosis. Additionally, the in-hospital MACE rate was 9.5%. Overall, the procedural success rate was 89.1% (the performance goal was 82%). In terms of the safety endpoint,
the freedom from MACE at 30 days was 89.8%—superseding the original performance goal of 83%.
Chambers concluded: “ORBIT II was unique in enrolling only patients with severely calcified coronary arteries. It met its primary and safety endpoints by a significant margin. The improvement in clinical outcomes might be attributed to the unique mechanism of action of the Orbital atherectomy system.” He added that the technology appeared to “address unmet need for this difficult to treat patient population.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40