Search

Heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular function inflicts a large and growing burden of morbidity and mortality in the US and across the globe. One source of this burden is stroke. While it appears that HF itself may impose some risk of stroke, it is in the presence of other risk factors, like atrial fibrillation, that the greatest risks are observed. Therapeutic anticoagulation is the mainstay of risk reduction strategies in this population. While warfarin was the only available therapy for anticoagulation for many decades, there are now four direct oral anticoagulants available. In three of these four, outcomes in the specific subgroup of patients with heart failure have been examined. In this review, we provide some pathophysiologic basis for the risk of stroke in heart failure. In addition, the available therapeutic options for stroke risk prevention in heart failure are described in detail including how these options are incorporated into relevant professional society guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the U.S. It states that the program financially penalized hospitals if they have higher-than-expected risk-standardized 30-day readmission rates for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. It mentions that the goal of the program is to incentivize process of care that reduces preventable events and reduce readmission rates.

The risks and benefits of anticoagulation for patients with both heart failure and atrial fibrillation are unclear. We hypothesized that anticoagulation was associated with improved clinical outcomes of heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation independent of other risk factors. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of clinical registry data linked to Medicare claims for new users of oral anticoagulation (warfarin) without contraindications, discharged home alive, and stratified by CHADS2 score. Outcomes of interest were propensity score-adjusted estimates of the effects of warfarin at discharge on all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, and bleeding events. Among 10,494 patients with heart failure and atrial fbrillation, the 2249 patients newly treated with warfarin had lower 1-year mortality (27.7% vs 39.3% for CHADS2 score ≤ 3 [P < .001]; 31.6% vs 41.8% for CHADS2 score > 3 [P < .001]) than patients not treated with warfarin. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events, major adverse cardiovascular events, or bleeding events at 1 year. After multivariate adjustment, exposed individuals in both CHADS2 subgroups had lower adjusted 1-year mortality (CHADS2 ≤ 3: hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.89]; CHADS2 > 3: 0.78 [0.66-0.93]). In conclusion, warfarin use in heart failure patients with atrial fbrillation was associated with improved survival at 1 year independent of baseline CHADS2 score. However, there was no significant reduction in clinical events, such as thromboembolic or major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year that might simply explain the survival benefit associated with warfarin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For many patients, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) risk is elevated temporarily. Wearable cardioverter-defibrillators (WCDs) can monitor and treat SCA during these temporary periods. Traditional WCDs can be uncomfortable, require frequent maintenance, and cannot be used when showering, resulting in poor compliance and avoidable SCA deaths. The Jewel is a novel, water-resistant patch–wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (P-WCD) with a machine learning detection algorithm designed to improve compliance and protection against SCA. This study aims to demonstrate the safety and clinical effectiveness of a novel P-WCD. The Jewel IDE Study, a prospective, single-arm study conducted at 30 U.S. sites, enrolled patients at SCA risk due to ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation who were not candidates for or refused an implantable defibrillator. The primary safety endpoint was <15% patients with clinically significant cutaneous adverse device effects and the primary effectiveness endpoint was <2 inappropriate shocks/100 patient-months. Secondary endpoints were ≥1 successful ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation conversion and wear time compliance of >14.1 h/d. A total of 305 patients (mean age: 57.9 years; 30.2% female, 27.9% non-White) were enrolled, of which 290 had available device data. The clinically significant cutaneous adverse device effect rate was 2.30% (upper 1-sided 98% CI: 4.80); none were severe. No device-related deaths or serious adverse events were reported. The inappropriate shock rate was 0.36/100 patient-months (upper 1-sided 98% CI: 1.53). Of 11 shocks in 9 patients, 9 shocks were adjudicated to be appropriate. Eight of 9 shocks were successful with a single shock. Median wear time compliance was 23.5 (20.7-23.9) h/d. The novel P-WCD is a safe and effective WCD with high patient compliance. There were no deaths due to noncompliance and a high number of successful conversions (Jewel IDE study [A Clinical Evaluation of the Jewel P-WCD in Subjects at High Risk for Sudden Cardiac Arrest]; NCT05201495) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights on the Tobacco, Exercise and Diet Messages (TEXT ME) study by C. K. Chow and colleagues regarding mobile technologies that facilitate health behavioral change. Topics mentioned include the need for scalable and pragmatic solutions on cardiovascular disease (CVD), the use of mobile phone text messages in the randomized clinical trial to coronary patients, and the influence to patient behaviors and improve the short term profile risk.

The authors discuss a working group convened in May 2013 by the public-private partnership Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative to identify barriers to the conduct of large, simple clinical trials. Topics addressed include enlarging the risk-benefit balance of therapies, making trials simpler to bring a treatment to market faster, and the need to randomize studies for most therapies. Also mentioned are advances made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to streamline trials.

Behavioral challenges are often present in human illness, so behavioral economics is increasingly being applied in healthcare settings to better understand why patients choose healthy or unhealthy behaviors. The application of behavioral economics to healthcare settings parallels recent shifts in policy and reimbursement structures that hold providers accountable for outcomes that are dependent on patient behaviors. Numerous studies have examined the application of behavioral economics principles to policy making and health behaviors, but there are limited data on applying these concepts to the management of chronic conditions, such as heart failure (HF). Given its increasing prevalence and high associated cost of care, HF is a paradigm case for studying novel approaches to improve health care; therefore, if we can better understand why patients with HF make the choices they do, then we may be more poised to help them manage their medications, influence daily behaviors, and encourage healthy decision making. In this article, we will give a brief explanation of the core behavioral economics concepts that apply to patients with HF. We will also examine how to craft these concepts into tools such as financial incentives and social networks that may improve the management of patients with HF. We believe that behavioral economics can help us understand barriers to change, encourage positive behaviors, and offer additional approaches to improving the outcomes of patients with HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we enter the information age of health care, digital health technologies offer significant opportunities to optimize both clinical care delivery and clinical research. Despite their potential, the use of such information technologies in clinical care and research faces major data quality, privacy, and regulatory concerns. In hopes of addressing both the promise and challenges facing digital health technologies in the transformation of health care, we convened a think tank meeting with academic, industry, and regulatory representatives in December 2016 in Washington, DC. In this paper, we summarize the proceedings of the think tank meeting and aim to delineate a framework for appropriately using digital health technologies in healthcare delivery and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2009, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began publicly reporting 30-day hospital readmission rates for patients discharged with acute myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia.Objectives: This study assessed trends of 30-day readmission rates and post-discharge care since the implementation of CMS public reporting.Methods: We analyzed Medicare claims data from 2006 to 2012 for patients discharged after a hospitalization for MI, HF, or pneumonia. For each diagnosis, we estimated trends in 30-day all-cause readmissions and post-discharge care (emergency department visits and observation stays) by using hospitalization-level regression models. We modeled adjusted trends before and after the implementation of public reporting. To assess for a change in trend, we tested the difference between the slope before implementation and the slope after implementation.Results: We analyzed 37,829 hospitalizations for MI, 100,189 for HF, and 79,076 for pneumonia from >4,100 hospitals. When considering only recent trends (i.e., since 2009), we found improvements in adjusted readmission rates for MI (-2.3%), HF (-1.8%), and pneumonia (-2.0%), but when comparing the trend before public reporting with the trend after reporting, there was no difference for MI (p = 0.72), HF (p = 0.19), or pneumonia (p = 0.21). There were no changes in trends for 30-day post-discharge care for MI or pneumonia; however, the trend decreased for HF emergency department visits from 2.3% to -0.8% (p = 0.007) and for observation stays from 15.1% to 4.1% (p = 0.04).Conclusions: The release of the CMS public reporting of hospital readmission rates was not associated with any measurable change in 30-day readmission trends for MI, HF, or pneumonia, but it was associated with less hospital-based acute care for HF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guidelines for heart failure (HF) recommend prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy before hospital discharge; some of these therapies are included in publicly reported performance measures. The burden of new medications for individual patients has not been described.Methods and Results: We used Get With The Guidelines-HF registry data from 2008 to 2013 to characterize prescribing, indications, and contraindications for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate, and anticoagulants. The difference between a patient's medication regimen at hospital admission and that recommended by HF quality measures at discharge was calculated. Among 158 922 patients from 271 hospitals with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF, initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was indicated in 18.1% of all patients (55.5% of those eligible at discharge were not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers at admission), β-blockers in 20.3% (50.5% of eligible), aldosterone antagonists in 24.1% (87.4% of eligible), hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate in 8.6% (93.1% of eligible), and anticoagulants in 18.0% (58.0% of eligible). Cumulatively, 0.4% of patients were eligible for 5 new medication groups, 4.1% for 4 new medication groups, 9.4% for 3 new medication groups, 10.1% for 2 new medication groups, and 22.7% for 1 new medication group; 15.0% were not eligible for new medications because of adequate prescribing at admission; and 38.4% were not eligible for any medications recommended by HF quality measures. Compared with newly indicated medications (mean, 1.45 ± 1.23), actual new prescriptions were lower (mean, 1.16 ± 1.00).Conclusions: A quarter of patients hospitalized with HF need to start >1 medication to meet HF quality measures. Systems for addressing medication initiation and managing polypharmacy are central to HF transitional care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Because little was previously known about Asian-American patients with heart failure (HF), we compared clinical profiles, quality of care, and outcomes between Asian-American and non-Hispanic white HF patients using data from the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) program. Methods We analyzed 153,023 HF patients (149,249 whites, 97.5%; 3774 Asian-Americans, 2.5%) from 356 U.S. centers participating in the GWTG-HF program (2005-2012). Baseline characteristics, quality of care metrics, in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, and length of stay were examined. Results Relative to white patients, Asian-American HF patients were younger, more likely to be male, uninsured or covered by Medicaid, and recruited in the western region. They had higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, and renal insufficiency, but similar ejection fraction. Overall, Asian-American HF patients had comparable quality of care except that they were less likely to receive aldosterone antagonists at discharge (relative risk , 0.88; 95% confidence interval , 0.78-0.99), and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97) even after risk adjustment. Compared with white patients, Asian-American patients had comparable risk adjusted in-hospital mortality (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.91-1.35), length of stay > 4 days (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.08), and were more likely to be discharged to home (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Conclusions Despite some differences in clinical profiles, Asian-American patients hospitalized with HF receive very similar quality of care and have comparable health outcomes to their white counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about global patterns of critical care unit (CCU) care and the relationship with outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). Whether a ward or a CCU admission is associated with better outcomes is unclear. Methods: Patients in the Acute Study of Clinical Effectiveness of Nesiritide in Decompensated Heart Failure (ASCEND-HF) trial were initially hospitalized in a ward or CCU (coronary or intensive care unit). Sites were geographically classified: Asia-Pacific (AP), Central Europe (CE), Latin America (LA), North America (NA), and Western-Europe (WE). The primary outcome of 30-day all-cause mortality or all-cause hospital readmission was adjusted using a two-stage multivariable logistic regression model with a generalized estimated equation that took sites within each country as a nested random factor. Results: Overall, 1944 (38.2%) patients were admitted to a CCU and 3150 (61.8%) to a ward, and this varied by region: 50.6% AP, 63.3% CE, 60.7% WE, 22.1% LA, and 28.6% NA. The 30-day death or readmission rate was 15.2% in ward patients and 17.0% in CCU patients (risk-adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 1.44: 95% CI, 1.14–1.82). Compared with CCU patients in NA (24.1% 30-day event rate), the primary outcomes were: AP (10.4%, Odds Ratio [OR] 0.63; 95% confidence Interval [CI], 0.35 to 1.15), CE (10.4%, OR 0.56: 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.02), LA (22.4%, OR 0.60: 95% CI, 0.11 to 3.32), and WE (11.2%, OR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.56). No regional differences in 30-day mortality were observed; however, 30-day readmission rates were highest in NA sites. Conclusions: Management of patients with ADHF varies significantly, and after adjustment, CCU care was associated with higher risk of early mortality, not explained by international differences. These findings may help to improve the early decisions regarding risk stratification of patients hospitalized with ADHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study sought to examine trends in mortality, readmission, and costs among Medicare beneficiaries receiving ventricular assist devices (VADs) and associations between hospital-level procedure volume and outcomes. Background: VADs are an option for patients with advanced heart failure, but temporal changes in outcomes and associations between facility-level volume and outcomes are poorly understood. Methods: This is a population-based, retrospective cohort study of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure who received an implantable VAD between 2006 and 2011. We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine temporal changes in mortality, readmission, and hospital-level procedure volume. Results: Among 2,507 patients who received a VAD at 103 centers during the study period, the in-hospital mortality decreased from 30% to 10% (p < 0.001), the 1-year mortality decreased from 42% to 26% (p < 0.001), and the all-cause readmission was frequent (82% and 81%; p = 0.70). After covariate adjustment, in-hospital and 1-year mortality decreased (p < 0.001 for both), but the all-cause readmission did not change (p = 0.82). Hospitals with a low procedure volume had higher risks of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28 to 2.33) and 1-year mortality (risk ratio: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.93) than high-volume hospitals. Procedure volume was not associated with risk of readmission. The greatest cost was from the index hospitalization and remained unchanged ($204,020 in 2006 and $201,026 in 2011; p = 0.21). Conclusions: Short- and long-term mortality after VAD implantation among Medicare beneficiaries improved, but readmission remained similar over time. A higher volume of VAD implants was associated with lower risk of mortality but not readmission. Costs to Medicare have not changed in recent years. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background—The transition of scientific knowledge from discovery into practice is less than ideal. A key step in this translation occurs when presentations from major meetings are published in peer-reviewed literature, yet the completeness and speed of this process are not known. We performed a systematic and automated evaluation of rates, timing, and correlates of publication from scientific abstracts presented at 3 major cardiovascular conferences. Methods and Results—Using an automated computer algorithm, we searched the ISI Web of Science to identify peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented at the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) scientific sessions from 2006 to 2008. We compared abstract publication rates and journal impact factor between the 3 meetings using multivariable logistic regression modeling. From 2006 to 2008, 11 365, 5005, and 10 838 abstracts were presented at the AHA, ACC, and ESC meetings, respectively. Overall, 30.6% of presented abstracts were published within 2 years of the conference; ranging from 34.5% for AHA to 29.5% for ACC to 27.0% for ESC (P<0.000 1). Five years after conference presentation in 2005, these rates had risen slightly to 49.7% for AHA, 42.6% for ACC, and 37.6% for ESC (P<0.000l). After adjustment for abstract characteristics and contributing countries, abstracts presented at the AHA meeting remained more likely for publication relative to the ESC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.34) and the ACC (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29). Median impact factors for subsequent publications varied from 4.8 (interquartile range, 3.8-10.1) for AHA to 4.0 (interquartile range, 3.1-7.5) for ACC and 3.9 (quartile 1-3, 2.5-5.8) for ESC (P for difference between groups <0.01). Clinical science and population science were less likely to be published compared with basic science. Conclusions—One third of abstracts were translated into publications by 2 years after presentation and less than one half by 5 years after presentation. Our findings suggest that efforts to understand the barriers to publication and to facilitate the rapid dissemination of new knowledge are needed to speed up the transition of scientific discovery into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disease management programs that target patients with the highest risk of subsequent costs may help payers and providers control health care costs, but identifying these patients prospectively is challenging. We hypothesized that medical history and clinical data from a heart failure registry could be used to prospectively identify patients with heart failure most likely to incur high costs. We linked Medicare inpatient claims to clinical registry data for patients with heart failure and calculated total Medicare costs during the year after the index heart failure hospitalization. We defined patients as having high costs if they were in the upper 5% (>$76,500) of the distribution. We used logistic regression models to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with high costs. Costs for 40,317 patients in the study varied widely. Patients in the upper 5% of the cost distribution incurred mean costs of $117,193 ± 55,550 during 1 year of follow-up compared to $17,086 ± 17,792 for the lower-cost group. Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with high costs included younger age and black race; history of anemia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, or peripheral vascular disease; serum creatinine level; and systolic blood pressure at admission. Mean 1-year Medicare costs for patients whom the model predicted would exceed the high-cost threshold were >2 times the costs for patients below the threshold. In conclusion, a model based on variables from clinical registries can identify a group of patients with heart failure who on average will incur higher costs in the first year after hospitalization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Heart rate (HR) has been identified as a risk factor for adverse longterm outcomes in patients with and without heart disease. However, the relationship between discharge HR and outcomes in patients receiving guideline based therapy for HF remains unknown. Hypothesis: Heart rate at hospital discharge in patients with HF is an independent predictor of mortality and readmission rates at 1 year. Methods: Using the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines Heart Failure national quality assurance registry linked with Medicare data, long term outcomes for patients =65 years of age hospitalized from 2005-2011 were obtained. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to examine the relationship between 1-year outcomes (death or all cause readmission) and discharge HR. Heart rate was analyzed as a categorical (tertiles) or continuous variable. Crude and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the association between discharge HR and the risk of death or hospitalization by 1-year were obtained from logistic regression modeling. Results: The analysis sample was comprised of 45,672 patients with a valid link to Medicare data and 1 year outcome status. The mean age was 80 ±8 years; % male was 45.7; and the mean ejection fraction was 43.5 ±16. Median discharge HRs for the first, second and third tertiles significantly differed (61, 72 and 87 bpm, respectively, p <0.0001). In univariable and multivariable analyses adjusted for clinical and hospital level variables there was a statistically significant relationship between 1 year outcomes and discharge HR (Table). Conclusion: In hospitalized patients with HF, HR at the time of discharge is an independent predictor of mortality. Despite optimal adherence to current guideline based therapy, the odds for all-cause mortality increased by 13% for every 10 beat increases in HR. The use of HR both as a prognostic variable, as well as potentially modifiable risk factor, may be of value in risk-stratification algorithms at discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]