RESUMO
Introduction: Patients with mental disorders are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. We aimed to assess the cardiovascular mortality trends over the last two decades among patients with mental and behavioral co-morbidities in the US. Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational study using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research (CDC WONDER) Multiple Cause of Death dataset. We determined national trends in age-standardized mortality rates attributed to cardiovascular diseases in patients with and without mental and behavioral disorders, from 1999 to 2020, stratified by mental and behavioral disorders subtype [ICD10 codes F], age, gender, race, and place of residence. Results: Among more than 18.7 million cardiovascular deaths in the United States (US), 13.5% [2.53 million] were patients with a concomitant mental and behavioral disorder. During the study period, among patients with mental and behavioral disorders, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased by 113.9% Vs a 44.8% decline in patients with no mental disorder (both p<0.05). In patients with mental and behavioral disorders, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased more significantly among patients whose mental and behavioral disorder was secondary to substance abuse (+532.6%, p<0.05) than among those with organic mental disorders, such as dementia or delirium (+6.2%, P- nonsignificant). Male patients (+163.6%) and residents of more rural areas (+128-162%) experienced a more prominent increase in age-adjusted cardiovascular mortality. Discussion: While there was an overall reduction in cardiovascular mortality in the US in the past two decades, we demonstrated an overall increase in cardiovascular mortality among patients with mental disorders.
RESUMO
Background Routine addition of an atrial lead during an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, in patients without pacing indications, was not shown beneficial in contemporary studies. We aimed to investigate the use and safety of single- versus dual-chamber ICD implantations in these patients. Methods and Results Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with no pacing indications who underwent primary-prevention ICD implantation in the United States between 2015 and 2019. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as in-hospital complications, were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of in-hospital complications. An estimated total of 15 940 patients, underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death during the study period, 8860 (55.6%) received a dual-chamber ICD. The mean age was 64 years, and 66% were men. In-hospital complication rates in the dual-chamber ICD and single-chamber ICD group were 12.8% and 10.7%, respectively (P<0.001), driven by increased rates of pneumothorax/hemothorax (4.6% versus 3.4%; P<0.001) and lead dislodgement (3.6% versus 2.3%; P<0.001) in the dual-chamber ICD group. Multivariable analyses confirmed atrial lead addition as an independent predictor for "any complications" (odds ratio [OR], 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.2]), for pneumo/hemothorax (odds ratio, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.0-1.4]), and for lead dislodgement (odds ratio, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.6]). Conclusions Despite lack of evidence for clinical benefit, dual-chamber ICDs are implanted for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in a majority of patients who do not have pacing indication. This practice is associated with increased risk of periprocedural complications. Avoidance of routine implantation of atrial leads will likely improve safety outcomes.
