No mental illness impact on post-aortic valve replacement patients' new-onset atrial fibrillation

Natalie K. Kolba, Julia Dokko, S. Novotny, So Agha, Ashutosh Yaligar, Jennifer Morrone, P. Parikh, A. Pryor, H. Tannous, Thomas Bilfinger, A. L. Shroyer
{"title":"No mental illness impact on post-aortic valve replacement patients' new-onset atrial fibrillation","authors":"Natalie K. Kolba, Julia Dokko, S. Novotny, So Agha, Ashutosh Yaligar, Jennifer Morrone, P. Parikh, A. Pryor, H. Tannous, Thomas Bilfinger, A. L. Shroyer","doi":"10.20517/2574-1209.2022.61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The mental illness (MEI) impact upon risk-adjusted first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) or repeat AVR (r-AVR) outcomes is unknown. Comparing patients with and without new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (POAF/AFL), this retrospective cohort investigation evaluated if MEI impacted patients’ risk-adjusted AVR/r-AVR outcomes. Methods: Using de-identified New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (administrative) database reports, multivariable logistic regression models compared post-procedural POAF/AFL, 30-day readmission, and composite (i.e., 30-day operative mortality or morbidity) endpoints between MEI and non-MEI patients. Results: From 2005-2018, there were 36,947 first-time AVR patients and 242 r-AVR patients; of these, 13.18% AVR (n = 4,868) and 16.94% r-AVR (n = 41) patients had preprocedural MEI diagnoses. Compared to non-MEI patients, MEI patients had increased rates of transcatheter vs. surgical procedures and higher pre-procedural risks including alcoholism, illegal drug use, tobacco product use, suicidal ideation, or other comorbidities (e.g., valvular disease, atherosclerotic disease, hypertension obesity, and anemia); they were younger, female, and non-Black/non-Hispanic, and had non-commercial (e.g., government or self-pay) insurance. Contrasted to non-MEI patients, MEI patients had no different risk-adjusted new onset of POAF (AVR P = 0.575; r-AVR P = 0.497), 30-day readmission (AVR P = 0.163; r-AVR P = 0.486), and mortality/morbidity composite (AVR P = 0.848; r-AVR P = 0.295) rates. Conclusions: Despite MEI patients’ inherent higher pre-procedural AVR/r-AVR risk, no differences in the MEI vs. non-MEI risk-adjusted POAF/AFL, 30-day readmission, or composite rates were found; however, MEI patients more frequently were selected to receive transcatheter rather than open surgical procedures.","PeriodicalId":75299,"journal":{"name":"Vessel plus","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vessel plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2022.61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The mental illness (MEI) impact upon risk-adjusted first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) or repeat AVR (r-AVR) outcomes is unknown. Comparing patients with and without new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (POAF/AFL), this retrospective cohort investigation evaluated if MEI impacted patients’ risk-adjusted AVR/r-AVR outcomes. Methods: Using de-identified New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (administrative) database reports, multivariable logistic regression models compared post-procedural POAF/AFL, 30-day readmission, and composite (i.e., 30-day operative mortality or morbidity) endpoints between MEI and non-MEI patients. Results: From 2005-2018, there were 36,947 first-time AVR patients and 242 r-AVR patients; of these, 13.18% AVR (n = 4,868) and 16.94% r-AVR (n = 41) patients had preprocedural MEI diagnoses. Compared to non-MEI patients, MEI patients had increased rates of transcatheter vs. surgical procedures and higher pre-procedural risks including alcoholism, illegal drug use, tobacco product use, suicidal ideation, or other comorbidities (e.g., valvular disease, atherosclerotic disease, hypertension obesity, and anemia); they were younger, female, and non-Black/non-Hispanic, and had non-commercial (e.g., government or self-pay) insurance. Contrasted to non-MEI patients, MEI patients had no different risk-adjusted new onset of POAF (AVR P = 0.575; r-AVR P = 0.497), 30-day readmission (AVR P = 0.163; r-AVR P = 0.486), and mortality/morbidity composite (AVR P = 0.848; r-AVR P = 0.295) rates. Conclusions: Despite MEI patients’ inherent higher pre-procedural AVR/r-AVR risk, no differences in the MEI vs. non-MEI risk-adjusted POAF/AFL, 30-day readmission, or composite rates were found; however, MEI patients more frequently were selected to receive transcatheter rather than open surgical procedures.
精神疾病对主动脉瓣置换术后新发心房颤动患者无影响
目的:精神疾病(MEI)对经风险调整的首次主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)或重复主动脉瓣置换术(r-AVR)结果的影响尚不清楚。通过比较有和没有术后新发心房颤动或心房扑动(POAF/AFL)的患者,本回顾性队列研究评估MEI是否会影响患者的风险调整AVR/r-AVR结果。方法:使用去识别的纽约州规划与研究合作系统(行政)数据库报告,采用多变量logistic回归模型比较MEI和非MEI患者的术后POAF/AFL、30天再入院和综合(即30天手术死亡率或发病率)终点。结果:2005-2018年,首次AVR患者36947例,二次AVR患者242例;其中,13.18%的AVR患者(n = 4,868)和16.94%的r-AVR患者(n = 41)有手术前MEI诊断。与非MEI患者相比,MEI患者经导管与外科手术的发生率增加,手术前风险更高,包括酒精中毒、非法药物使用、烟草制品使用、自杀意念或其他合并症(如瓣膜疾病、动脉粥样硬化疾病、高血压、肥胖和贫血);他们年轻,女性,非黑人/非西班牙裔,并且有非商业(例如政府或自付)保险。与非MEI患者相比,MEI患者经风险调整后POAF新发发生率无差异(AVR P = 0.575;r-AVR P = 0.497), 30天再入院(AVR P = 0.163;r-AVR P = 0.486),死亡率/发病率复合(AVR P = 0.848;r-AVR P = 0.295)。结论:尽管MEI患者术前AVR/r-AVR风险固有较高,但MEI与非MEI风险调整后的POAF/AFL、30天再入院率或综合发生率均无差异;然而,MEI患者更多地选择接受经导管手术而不是开放手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信