Background: Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality. Results: Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race. Conclusions: Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.

Anatomic success rates for secondary PR, PPV, and SB+PPV after failed PR were lower than published success rates for their use in primary RD. This suggests that a failed primary PR selects for RDs that are inherently more difficult to reattach. There was a trend suggesting that anatomic success rates are greater with SB+PPV than PPV and, in turn, with PPV than repeat PR. However, these differences were not statistically significant and did not translate into better VA gains at 1 year for either procedure. The suitable procedure after failed PR thus depends on patient presentation, surgeon preference, and patient preference.

No abstract

No abstract

Finally, the authors conclude that, "The suitable procedure after failed PR thus depends on patient presentation, surgeon preference, and patient preference." This is too much of a generalized statement and does not do justice to the data they have so meticulously analyzed. Instead, the conclusion could be used as an opportunity to reemphasize the lack of clear evidence based guidelines in managing patients with failed PR and the need for randomized, prospective trials.