Browsing by Author "Merkler, Alexander E."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Acute Ischemic Stroke, Depressed Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, and Sinus Rhythm: Prevalence and Practice Patterns
    (American Heart Association, 2022) Baker, Anna D.; Schwamm, Lee H.; Sanborn, Danita Y.; Furie, Karen; Stretz, Christoph; Grory, Brian Mac; Yaghi, Shadi; Kleindorfer, Dawn; Sucharew, Heidi; Mackey, Jason; Walsh, Kyle; Flaherty, Matt; Kissela, Brett; Alwell, Kathleen; Khoury, Jane; Khatri, Pooja; Adeoye, Opeolu; Ferioli, Simona; Woo, Daniel; Martini, Sharyl; De Los Rios La Rosa, Felipe; Demel, Stacie L.; Madsen, Tracy; Star, Michael; Coleman, Elisheva; Slavin, Sabreena; Jasne, Adam; Mistry, Eva A.; Haverbusch, Mary; Merkler, Alexander E.; Kamel, Hooman; Schindler, Joseph; Sansing, Lauren H.; Faridi, Kamil F.; Sugeng, Lissa; Sheth, Kevin N.; Sharma, Richa; Neurology, School of Medicine
    Background: There are limited data about the epidemiology and secondary stroke prevention strategies used for patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and sinus rhythm following an acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We sought to describe the prevalence of LVEF ≤40% and sinus rhythm among patients with AIS and antithrombotic treatment practice in a multi-center cohort from 2002 to 2018. Methods: This was a multi-center, retrospective cohort study comprised of patients with AIS hospitalized in the Greater Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Stroke Study and 4 academic, hospital-based cohorts in the United States. A 1-stage meta-analysis of proportions was undertaken to calculate a pooled prevalence. Univariate analyses and an adjusted multivariable logistic regression model were performed to identify demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic characteristics associated with being prescribed an anticoagulant upon AIS hospitalization discharge. Results: Among 14 338 patients with AIS with documented LVEF during the stroke hospitalization, the weighted pooled prevalence of LVEF ≤40% and sinus rhythm was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.1-6.0%; I2, 84.4%). Of 524 patients with no cardiac thrombus and no prior indication for anticoagulant who survived postdischarge, 200 (38%) were discharged on anticoagulant, 289 (55%) were discharged on antiplatelet therapy only, and 35 (7%) on neither. There was heterogeneity by site in the proportion discharged with an anticoagulant (22% to 45%, P<0.0001). Cohort site and National Institutes of Health Stroke Severity scale >8 (odds ratio, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.1-3.8]) were significant, independent predictors of being discharged with an anticoagulant in an adjusted analysis. Conclusions: Nearly 5% of patients with AIS have a depressed LVEF and are in sinus rhythm. There is significant variation in the clinical practice of antithrombotic therapy prescription by site and stroke severity. Given this clinical equipoise, further study is needed to define optimal antithrombotic treatment regimens for secondary stroke prevention in this patient population.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evidence-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance cost-effectiveness calculator for the detection of significant coronary artery disease
    (BMC, 2022) Pandya, Ankur; Yu, Yuan‑Jui; Ge, Yin; Nagel, Eike; Kwong, Raymond Y.; Bakar, Rafidah Abu; Grizzard, John D.; Merkler, Alexander E.; Ntusi, Ntobeko; Petersen, Steffen E.; Rashedi, Nina; Schwitter, Juerg; Selvanayagam, Joseph B.; White, James A.; Carr, James; Raman, Subha V.; Simonetti, Orlando P.; Bucciarelli‑Ducci, Chiara; Sierra‑Galan, Lilia M.; Ferrari, Victor A.; Bhatia, Mona; Kelle, Sebastian; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Although prior reports have evaluated the clinical and cost impacts of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for low-to-intermediate-risk patients with suspected significant coronary artery disease (CAD), the cost-effectiveness of CMR compared to relevant comparators remains poorly understood. We aimed to summarize the cost-effectiveness literature on CMR for CAD and create a cost-effectiveness calculator, useable worldwide, to approximate the cost-per-quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) of CMR and relevant comparators with context-specific patient-level and system-level inputs. Methods: We searched the Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and PubMed for cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year-saved studies of CMR to detect significant CAD. We also developed a linear regression meta-model (CMR Cost-Effectiveness Calculator) based on a larger CMR cost-effectiveness simulation model that can approximate CMR lifetime discount cost, QALY, and cost effectiveness compared to relevant comparators [such as single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)] or invasive coronary angiography. Results: CMR was cost-effective for evaluation of significant CAD (either health-improving and cost saving or having a cost-per-QALY or cost-per-life-year result lower than the cost-effectiveness threshold) versus its relevant comparator in 10 out of 15 studies, with 3 studies reporting uncertain cost effectiveness, and 2 studies showing CCTA was optimal. Our cost-effectiveness calculator showed that CCTA was not cost-effective in the US compared to CMR when the most recent publications on imaging performance were included in the model. Conclusions: Based on current world-wide evidence in the literature, CMR usually represents a cost-effective option compared to relevant comparators to assess for significant CAD.