Search

Cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI-CS) carries significant mortality despite advances in revascularization and mechanical circulatory support. We sought to identify the process-based and structural characteristics of centers with lower mortality in AMI-CS. We analyzed 16,337 AMI-CS cases across 440 centers enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Chest Pain-MI Registry, a retrospective cohort database, between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Centers were stratified across tertiles of risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (RAMR) for comparison. Risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression was also performed to identify hospital-level characteristics associated with decreased mortality. The median participant age was 66 (interquartile range 57 to 75) years, and 33.0% (n = 5,390) were women. The median RAMR was 33.4% (interquartile range 26.0% to 40.0%) and ranged from 26.9% to 50.2% across tertiles. Even after risk adjustment, lower-RAMR centers saw patients with fewer co-morbidities. Lower-RAMR centers performed more revascularization (92.8% vs 90.6% vs 85.9%, p <0.001) and demonstrated better adherence to associated process measures. Left ventricular assist device capability (odds ratio [OR] 0.78 [0.67 to 0.92], p = 0.002), more frequent revascularization (OR 0.93 [0.88 to 0.98], p = 0.006), and higher AMI-CS volume (OR 0.95 [0.91 to 0.99], p = 0.009) were associated with lower in-hospital mortality. However, several such characteristics were not more frequently observed at low-RAMR centers, despite potentially reflecting greater institutional experience or resources. This may reflect the heterogeneity of AMI-CS even after risk adjustment. In conclusion, low-RAMR centers do not necessarily exhibit factors associated with decreased mortality in AMI-CS, which may reflect the challenges in performing outcomes research in this complex population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Bhatt discloses the following relationships - Advisory Board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Stasys; Board of Directors: American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave (stock options), Bristol-Meyers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock); Consultant: Broadview Ventures, GlaxoSmithKline, Hims, SFJ, Youngene; Data Monitoring Committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT trial); Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accrediation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Meyers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); Patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); Research Funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, 89Bio; Royalties: Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald's Heart Disease); Site Co-Investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, Vascular Solutions; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded Research: FlowCo. oooo Dr. Fonarow reports consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr. Grodin reports consulting for Alnylam, Eidos, Sarepta, and Pfizer. Dr. Khera is a coinventor of US Pending Patent Applications. 63/177,117 and 63/346,610, unrelated to the present study; also a founder of Evidence2Health and Ensight-AI; received support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HL167858 and K23HL153775) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (2,022,060); and receives research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and BridgeBio, through Yale. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diabetes can be an arduous journey both for people with diabetes (PWD) and their caregivers. While the journey of every person with diabetes is unique, common themes emerge in managing this disease. To date, the experiences of PWD have not been fully considered to successfully implement the recommended standards of diabetes care in practice. It is critical for health-care providers (HCPs) to recognize perspectives of PWD to achieve optimal health outcomes. Further, existing tools are available to facilitate patient-centered care but are often underused. This statement summarizes findings from multistakeholder expert roundtable discussions hosted by the Endocrine Society that aimed to identify existing gaps in the management of diabetes and its complications and to identify tools needed to empower HCPs and PWD to address their many challenges. The roundtables included delegates from professional societies, governmental organizations, patient advocacy organizations, and social enterprises committed to making life better for PWD. Each section begins with a clinical scenario that serves as a framework to achieve desired health outcomes and includes a discussion of resources for HCPs to deliver patient-centered care in clinical practice. As diabetes management evolves, achieving this goal will also require the development of new tools to help guide HCPs in supporting PWD, as well as concrete strategies for the efficient uptake of these tools in clinical practice to minimize provider burden. Importantly, coordination among various stakeholders including PWD, HCPs, caregivers, policymakers, and payers is critical at all stages of the patient journey., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Apparent resistant hypertension (aRH) carries excess cardiovascular risk beyond nonresistant forms of hypertension; however, our understanding of this at-risk population, as defined by current US practice guidelines, is limited. Accordingly, we sought to evaluate the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and pharmacotherapeutic patterns of patients with aRH using contemporary blood pressure guidance., Methods: We classified patients at 3 large healthcare systems by hypertensive status using contemporary hypertension guidelines. We subsequently described the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with aRH and compared these factors among hypertensive patients without aRH and between those with controlled and uncontrolled aRH., Results: A total of 2 420 468 patients were analyzed, of whom 1 343 489 (55.6%) were hypertensive according to contemporary guidelines. Among hypertensive patients, 11 992 (8.5%) met criteria for aRH, with nearly all assessed comorbid conditions, particularly diabetes and heart failure, being more common in those with aRH. When compared with patients with uncontrolled aRH, those with controlled aRH were more frequently prescribed a beta-blocker, diuretic, and nitrate, with the largest standardized difference observed for a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (35.4% versus 10.4%, Cohen D 0.62). Consistent findings were noted in sensitivity analyses using the blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg., Conclusions: In an analysis of over 2.4 million individuals, a lower prevalence of aRH was observed than previously reported (12%-15%), but with a high burden of comorbidities. Identification of differences in pharmacotherapy between patients with controlled and uncontrolled aRH, particularly lower rates of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use, help define potential opportunities to improve care and lower cardiovascular risk., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Objectives: To characterize the long term risk of death and hospital readmission after an index admission with covid-19 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and to compare these outcomes with historical control patients admitted to hospital with influenza., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: United States., Participants: 883 394 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries age ≥65 years discharged alive after an index hospital admission with covid-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022, compared with 56 409 historical controls discharged alive after a hospital admission with influenza between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2019. Weighting methods were used to account for differences in observed characteristics., Main Outcome Measures: All cause death within 180 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included first all cause readmission and a composite of death or readmission within 180 days., Results: The covid-19 cohort compared with the influenza cohort was younger (77.9 v 78.9 years, standardized mean difference -0.12) and had a lower proportion of women (51.7% v 57.3%, -0.11). Both groups had a similar proportion of black beneficiaries (10.3% v 8.1%, 0.07) and beneficiaries with dual Medicaid-Medicare eligibility status (20.1% v 19.2%; 0.02). The covid-19 cohort had a lower comorbidity burden, including atrial fibrillation (24.3% v 29.5%, -0.12), heart failure (43.4% v 49.9%, -0.13), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (39.2% v 52.9%, -0.27). After weighting, the covid-19 cohort had a higher risk (ie, cumulative incidence) of all cause death at 30 days (10.9% v 3.9%; standardized risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 7.2%), 90 days (15.5% v 7.1%; 8.4%, 8.2% to 8.7%), and 180 days (19.1% v 10.5%; 8.6%, 8.3% to 8.9%) compared with the influenza cohort. The covid-19 cohort also experienced a higher risk of hospital readmission at 30 days (16.0% v 11.2%; 4.9%, 4.6% to 5.1%) and 90 days (24.1% v 21.3%; 2.8%, 2.5% to 3.2%) but a similar risk at 180 days (30.6% v 30.6%;-0.1%, -0.5% to 0.3%). Over the study period, the 30 day risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 admission decreased from 17.9% to 7.2%., Conclusions: Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged alive after a covid-19 hospital admission had a higher post-discharge risk of death compared with historical influenza controls; this difference, however, was concentrated in the early post-discharge period. The risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 related hospital admission substantially declined over the course of the pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. TS is currently employed by Moderna; his involvement in this project occurred while he was employed at the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research, before his employment at Moderna. IJD is the principal investigator of research agreement between Harvard and Sanofi on statistical methods for vaccine trials with applications to influenza, and has received consulting fees from Moderna. The other authors report no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved through multiple phases characterized by new viral variants, vaccine development, and changes in therapies. It is unknown whether rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor profiles and complications have changed over time., Methods: We analyzed the American Heart Association COVID-19 CVD registry, a national multicenter registry of hospitalized adults with active COVID-19 infection. The time period from April 2020 to December 2021 was divided into 3-month epochs, with March 2020 analyzed separately as a potential outlier. Participating centers varied over the study period. Trends in all-cause in-hospital mortality, CVD risk factors, and in-hospital CVD outcomes, including a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, new heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction, were evaluated across time epochs. Risk-adjusted analyses were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models., Results: A total of 46 007 patient admissions from 134 hospitals were included (mean patient age 61.8 years, 53% male, 22% Black race). Patients admitted later in the pandemic were younger, more likely obese, and less likely to have existing CVD ( P trend ≤0.001 for each). The incidence of the primary outcome increased from 7.0% in March 2020 to 9.8% in October to December 2021 (risk-adjusted P trend =0.006). This was driven by an increase in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and stroke ( P trend <0.0001 for each). The overall rate of in-hospital mortality was 14.2%, which declined over time (20.8% in March 2020 versus 10.8% in the last epoch; adjusted P trend <0.0001). When the analysis was restricted to July 2020 to December 2021, no temporal change in all-cause mortality was seen (adjusted P trend =0.63)., Conclusions: Despite a shifting risk factor profile toward a younger population with lower rates of established CVD, the incidence of diagnosed cardiovascular complications of COVID increased from the onset of the pandemic through December 2021. All-cause mortality decreased during the initial months of the pandemic and thereafter remained consistently high through December 2021., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Elkind reports serving as an unpaid Officer of the American Heart Association. Dr Hall, C. Rutan, J. Walchok, J.H. Williams, Dr Stevens, and P. Mallya are employees of the American Heart Association. Dr Wang reports receiving research grants to the Duke Clinical Research Institute from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Cryolife, Chiesi, Merck, Portola, and Regeneron, as well as consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cryolife, and Novartis. All other authors have no relationships to report.

Background: Housing instability is a key social determinant of health and has been linked to adverse short- and long-term health. Eviction reflects a severe form of housing instability and disproportionately affects minority and women residents in the USA; however, its relationship with mortality has not previously been described., Objective: To evaluate the independent association of county-level eviction rates with all-cause mortality in the USA after adjustment for county demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics., Design: Cross-sectional., Participants: Six hundred eighty-six US counties with available 2016 county-level eviction and mortality data., Exposure: 2016 US county-level eviction rate., Outcome: 2016 US county-level age-adjusted all-cause mortality., Key Results: Among 686 counties (66.1 million residents, 50.5% [49.7-51.2] women, 2% [0.5-11.1] Black race) with available eviction and mortality data in 2016, we observed a significant and graded relationship between county-level eviction rate and all-cause mortality. Counties in the highest eviction tertile demonstrated a greater proportion of residents of Black race and women and a higher prevalence of poverty and comorbid health conditions. After adjustment for county-level sociodemographic traits and prevalent comorbid health conditions, age-adjusted all-cause mortality was highest among counties in the highest eviction tertile (Tertile 3 vs 1 (per 100,000 people) 33.57: 95% CI: 10.5-56.6 p=.004). Consistent results were observed in continuous analysis of eviction, with all-cause mortality increasing by 9.32 deaths per 100,000 people (4.77, 13.89, p<.0001) for every 1% increase in eviction rates. Significant interaction in the relationship between eviction and all-cause mortality was observed by the proportion of Black and women residents., Conclusions: In this cross-sectional analysis, county-level eviction rates were significantly associated with all-cause mortality with the strongest effects observed among counties with the highest proportion of Black and women residents. State and federal protections from evictions may help to reduce the health consequences of housing instability and address disparities in health outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

As COVID-19 cases begin to decrease in the USA, learning from the pandemic experience will provide insights regarding disparities of care delivery. We sought to determine if specific populations hospitalized with COVID-19 are equally likely to be enrolled in clinical trials. We examined patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at centers participating in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 CVD Registry. The primary outcome was odds of enrollment in a clinical trial, according to sex, race, and ethnicity. Among 14,397 adults hospitalized with COVID-19, 9.5% (n = 1,377) were enrolled in a clinical trial. The proportion of enrolled patients was the lowest for Black patients (8%); in multivariable analysis, female and Black patients were less likely to be enrolled in a clinical trial related to COVID-19 compared to men and other racial groups, respectively. Determination of specific reasons for the disparities in trial participation related to COVID-19 in these populations should be further investigated., (© 2022. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

Objective: To understand the burden of healthcare expenses over the lifetime of individuals and evaluate differences among those with cardiovascular risk factors and among disadvantaged groups based on race/ethnicity and sex., Methods: We linked data from the longitudinal multiethnic Dallas Heart Study, which recruited participants between 2000 and 2002, with inpatient and outpatient claims from all hospitals in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex through December 2018, capturing encounter expenses. Race/ethnicity and sex, as well as five risk factors, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and overweight/obesity, were defined at cohort enrollment. For each individual, expenses were indexed to age and cumulated between 40 and 80 years of age. Lifetime expenses across exposures were evaluated as interactions in generalized additive models., Results: A total of 2184 individuals (mean age, 45±10 years; 61% women, 53% Black) were followed between 2000 and 2018. The mean modeled lifetime cumulative healthcare expenses were $442,629 (IQR, $423,850 to $461,408). In models that included 5 risk factors, Black individuals had $21,306 higher lifetime healthcare spending compared with non-Black individuals ( P  < .001), and men had modestly higher expenses than women ($5987, P  < .001). Across demographic groups, the presence of risk factors was associated with progressively higher lifetime expenses, with significant independent association of diabetes ($28,075, P  < .001), overweight/obesity ($8816, P  < .001), smoking ($3980, P  = .009), and hypertension ($528, P  = .02) with excess spending., Conclusion: Our study suggests Black individuals have higher lifetime healthcare expenses, exaggerated by the substantially higher prevalence of risk factors, with differences emerging in older age., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Khera receives support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (under award K23HL153775) and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (under award, 2022060). He also receives research support, through Yale, from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novo Nordisk. He is a coinventor of U.S. Provisional Patent Applications 63/177,117, 63/428,569, and 63/346,610, unrelated to current work. He is also a founder of Evidence2Health, a precision health platform to improve evidence-based care. Dr. Pandey reports financial support was provided by GEMSSTAR Grant 1R03AG067960. Dr. Powell-Wiley reports financial support was provided by Division of Intramural Research of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Minority Health, and Health Disparities of the NIH., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) "Standards of Care in Diabetes" includes the ADA's current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA's clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC., (© 2022 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Despite its cardiometabolic benefits, bariatric surgery has historically been underused in patients with obesity and diabetes, but contemporary data are lacking. Among 1,520,182 patients evaluated from 2013 to 2019 within a multicenter, longitudinal, US registry of outpatients with diabetes, we found that 462,033 (30%) met eligibility for bariatric surgery. After a median follow-up of 854 days, 6310/384,859 patients (1.6%) underwent primary bariatric surgery, with a slight increase over time (0.38% per year [2013] to 0.68% per year [2018]). Patients who underwent bariatric surgery were more likely to be female (63% vs. 56%), white (87% vs. 82%), have higher body mass indices (42.1 ± 6.9 vs. 40.6 ± 5.9 kg/m 2 ), and depression (23% vs. 14%; p < 0.001 for all). Over a median (IQR) follow-up after surgery of 722 days (364-993), patients who underwent bariatric surgery had lost an average of 11.8 ± 18.5 kg (23% of excess body weight), 10.2% were on fewer glucose-lowering medications, and 8.4% were on fewer antihypertensives. Despite bariatric surgery being safer and more accessible over the past two decades, less than one in fifty eligible patients with diabetes receive this therapy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Racial disparities in heart failure hospitalization and mortality are well established; however, the association between different social determinants of health (SDOH) and length of stay (LOS) and the extent to which this association may differ across racial groups is not well established., Methods: We utilized data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to evaluate the association between SDOH, as determined by patients' residential ZIP Code and LOS among patients hospitalized with heart failure. We also assessed the race-specific contribution of the ZIP Code-level SDOH to LOS in patients of Black and non-Black races. Finally, we evaluated SDOH predictors of racial differences in LOS at the hospital level., Results: Among 301 500 patients (20.2% Black race), the median LOS was 4 days. In adjusted analysis accounting for patient-level and hospital-level factors, SDOH parameters of education, income, housing instability, and foreign-born were significantly associated with LOS after adjusting for clinical status and hospital-level factors. SDOH parameters accounted for 25.8% of the total attributable risk for prolonged LOS among Black patients compared with 10.1% in patients of non-Black race. Finally, hospitals with disproportionately longer LOS for Black versus non-Black patients were more likely to care for disadvantaged patients living in ZIP Codes with a higher percentage of foreign-born and non-English speaking areas., Conclusions: ZIP Code-level SDOH markers can identify patients at risk for prolonged LOS, and the effects of SDOH parameters are significantly greater among Black adults with heart failure as compared with non-Black adults.

Background Pharmacy fill data are a practical tool for assessing medication nonadherence. However, previous studies have not compared the accuracy of pharmacy fill data to measurement of plasma drug levels, or chemical adherence testing (CAT). Methods and Results We performed a cross-sectional study in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in outpatient clinics in a safety net health system. Plasma samples were obtained for measurement of common cardiovascular drugs, including calcium channel blockers, thiazide diuretics, beta blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins, using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Proportion of days covered (PDC), a method for tracking pharmacy fill data, was calculated via linkages with Surescripts, and its diagnostic test characteristics were compared with CAT. Among 77 patients with uncontrolled hypertension, 13 (17%) were nonadherent to at least 1 antihypertensive drug and 23 (37%) were nonadherent to statins by CAT. PDC was significantly lower in the nonadherent versus the adherent group by CAT only among patients prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or statin (all P <0.05) but not in patients prescribed other drug classes. The sensitivity and specificity of PDC in detecting nonadherence to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and statin drugs by CAT were 75% to 82% and 56% to 79%, respectively. The positive predictive value of PDC in detecting nonadherence was only 11% to 27% for antihypertensive drugs and 45% for statins. Conclusions PDC is useful in detecting nonadherence to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and statins but has limited usefulness in detecting nonadherence to calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, or thiazide diuretics and has a low positive predictive value for all drug classes.

Background The AHA Registry (American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry) captures detailed information on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The registry, however, does not capture information on social determinants of health or long-term outcomes. Here we describe the linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources, including fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims, to fill these gaps and assess the representativeness of linked registry patients to the broader Medicare FFS population hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results We linked AHA Registry records of adults ≥65 years from March 2020 to September 2021 with Medicare FFS claims using a deterministic linkage algorithm and with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Rural Urban Commuting Area codes, and the Social Vulnerability Index using hospital and geographic identifiers. We compared linked individuals with unlinked FFS beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19 to assess the representativeness of the AHA Registry. A total of 10 010 (47.0%) records in the AHA Registry were successfully linked to FFS Medicare claims. Linked and unlinked FFS beneficiaries were similar with respect to mean age (78.1 versus 77.9, absolute standardized difference [ASD] 0.03); female sex (48.3% versus 50.2%, ASD 0.04); Black race (15.1% versus 12.0%, ASD 0.09); dual-eligibility status (26.1% versus 23.2%, ASD 0.07); and comorbidity burden. Linked patients were more likely to live in the northeastern United States (35.7% versus 18.2%, ASD 0.40) and urban/metropolitan areas (83.9% versus 76.8%, ASD 0.18). There were also differences in hospital-level characteristics between cohorts. However, in-hospital outcomes were similar (mortality, 23.3% versus 20.1%, ASD 0.08; home discharge, 45.5% versus 50.7%, ASD 0.10; skilled nursing facility discharge, 24.4% versus 22.2%, ASD 0.05). Conclusions Linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources such as Medicare FFS claims creates a unique and generalizable resource to evaluate long-term health outcomes after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been reported and associated with poor clinical outcomes. We aimed to understand the incidence of and outcomes associated with new-onset AF in a diverse and representative US cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19., Methods: We used data from the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry. Patients were stratified by the presence versus absence of new-onset AF. The primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, and heart failure). The association of new-onset AF and the primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional-hazards models for the primary time to event analyses., Results: Of the first 30 999 patients from 120 institutions across the United States hospitalized with COVID-19, 27 851 had no history of AF. One thousand five hundred seventeen (5.4%) developed new-onset AF during their index hospitalization. New-onset AF was associated with higher rates of death (45.2% versus 11.9%) and MACE (23.8% versus 6.5%). The unadjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.81-2.18) and for MACE was 2.23 (95% CI, 1.98-2.53) for patients with versus without new-onset AF. After adjusting for demographics, clinical comorbidities, and severity of disease, the associations with death (hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.99-1.23]) fully attenuated and MACE (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.14-1.50]) partially attenuated., Conclusions: New-onset AF was common (5.4%) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Almost half of patients with new-onset AF died during their index hospitalization. After multivariable adjustment for comorbidities and disease severity, new-onset AF was not statistically significantly associated with death, suggesting that new-onset AF in these patients may primarily be a marker of other adverse clinical factors rather than an independent driver of mortality. Causality between the MACE composites and AF needs to be further evaluated.

Background: Intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate (MgSO 4 ) supplementation is common despite limited indications. Oral magnesium oxide (MgO) is an effective, lower-cost alternative. This project aimed to reduce IV MgSO 4 use by 20% among the Internal Medicine (IM) service., Methods: Electronic health record (EHR) orders for MgSO 4 and MgO within the IM service were replaced with an indication-based EHR order panel. The project team educated clinicians regarding indications for IV MgSO 4 and relative costs. The mean of daily 2 g MgSO 4 administrations per week and the mean of weekly proportion of 2 g MgSO 4 administrations nine months before and after intervention were compared between IM and Emergency Medicine (EM) (control group). Statistical process control analysis was used to assess for special cause variation in daily MgSO 4 per week and weekly proportion of MgSO 4 administrations., Results: The mean of daily 2 g IV MgSO 4 administrations per week decreased among IM (19.3 vs. 12.1, p < 0.0001) but not EM (3.1 vs. 4.8, p < 0.0001). The mean of weekly proportions of IV MgSO 4 administrations decreased among both IM (83.6% vs. 60.7%, p < 0.0001) and EM (97.0% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.0004). For IM, the change in daily MgSO 4 per week and weekly proportion of MgSO 4 occurred as a discrete initial decline consistent with special cause variation; for EM, changes in both measures were not consistent with special cause variation., Conclusion: Replacing stand-alone IV MgSO 4 orders with an indication-based order panel along with clinician education reduced IV MgSO 4 administrations and may offer a significant opportunity to reduce low-value care., (Copyright © 2021 The Joint Commission. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and heart failure (HF) are increasing in prevalence. The independent association between NAFLD and downstream risk of HF and HF subtypes (HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction) is not well established. Methods and Results This was a retrospective, cohort study among Medicare beneficiaries. We selected Medicare beneficiaries without known prior diagnosis of HF. NAFLD was defined using presence of 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD-9-CM ), claims codes. Incident HF was defined using at least 1 inpatient or at least 2 outpatient HF claims during the follow-up period (October 2015-December 2016). Among 870 535 Medicare patients, 3.2% (N=27 919) had a clinical diagnosis of NAFLD. Patients with NAFLD were more commonly women, were less commonly Black patients, and had a higher burden of comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, and kidney disease. Over a mean 14.3 months of follow-up, patients with (versus without) baseline NAFLD had a significantly higher risk of new-onset HF in unadjusted (6.4% versus 5.0%; P <0.001) and adjusted (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 1.23 [1.18-1.29]) analyses. Among HF subtypes, the association of NAFLD with downstream risk of HF was stronger for HF with preserved ejection fraction (adjusted HR [95% CI], 1.24 [1.14-1.34]) compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (adjusted HR [95% CI], 1.09 [0.98-1.2]). Conclusions Patients with NAFLD are at an increased risk of incident HF, with a higher risk of developing HF with preserved ejection fraction versus HF with reduced ejection fraction. The persistence of an increased risk after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors suggests an epidemiological link between NAFLD and HF beyond the basis of shared risk factors that requires further investigation.

Background: Whether the volume of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations is associated with outcomes has important implications for the organization of hospital care both during this pandemic and future novel and rapidly evolving high-volume conditions., Methods: We identified COVID-19 hospitalizations at US hospitals in the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with ≥10 cases between January and August 2020. We evaluated the association of COVID-19 hospitalization volume and weekly case growth indexed to hospital bed capacity, with hospital risk-standardized in-hospital case-fatality rate (rsCFR)., Results: There were 85 hospitals with 15,329 COVID-19 hospitalizations, with a median hospital case volume was 118 (interquartile range, 57, 252) and median growth rate of 2 cases per 100 beds per week but varied widely (interquartile range: 0.9 to 4.5). There was no significant association between overall hospital COVID-19 case volume and rsCFR (rho, 0.18, P = .09). However, hospitals with more rapid COVID-19 case-growth had higher rsCFR (rho, 0.22, P = 0.047), increasing across case growth quartiles (P trend = .03). Although there were no differences in medical treatments or intensive care unit therapies (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors), the highest case growth quartile had 4-fold higher odds of above median rsCFR, compared with the lowest quartile (odds ratio, 4.00; 1.15 to 13.8, P = .03)., Conclusions: An accelerated case growth trajectory is a marker of hospitals at risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, identifying sites that may be targets for influx of additional resources or triage strategies. Early identification of such hospital signatures is essential as our health system prepares for future health challenges., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed longstanding racial and ethnic inequities in health risks and outcomes in the United States. We aimed to identify racial and ethnic differences in presentation and outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19., Methods: The American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry is a retrospective observational registry capturing consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We present data on the first 7868 patients by race/ethnicity treated at 88 hospitals across the United States between January 17, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure) and COVID-19 cardiorespiratory ordinal severity score (worst to best: death, cardiac arrest, mechanical ventilation with mechanical circulatory support, mechanical ventilation with vasopressors/inotrope support, mechanical ventilation without hemodynamic support, and hospitalization alone. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and each outcome adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and presentation features, and accounting for clustering by hospital., Results: Among 7868 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 33.0% were Hispanic, 25.5% were non-Hispanic Black, 6.3% were Asian, and 35.2% were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic and Black patients were younger than non-Hispanic White and Asian patients and were more likely to be uninsured. Black patients had the highest prevalence of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Black patients also had the highest rates of mechanical ventilation (23.2%) and renal replacement therapy (6.6%) but the lowest rates of remdesivir use (6.1%). Overall mortality was 18.4% with 53% of all deaths occurring in Black and Hispanic patients. The adjusted odds ratios for mortality were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.14) for Black patients, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.73-1.11) for Hispanic patients, and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.96-1.80) for Asian patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients. The median odds ratio across hospitals was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.74-2.48). Results were similar for major adverse cardiovascular events. Asian patients had the highest COVID-19 cardiorespiratory severity at presentation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.16-1.90])., Conclusions: Although in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ by race/ethnicity after adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients bore a greater burden of mortality and morbidity because of their disproportionate representation among COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Background Emerging evidence links acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 with higher mortality and respiratory morbidity, but the relationship of AKI with cardiovascular disease outcomes has not been reported in this population. We sought to evaluate associations between chronic kidney disease (CKD), AKI, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results In a large multicenter registry including 8574 patients with COVID-19 from 88 US hospitals, data were collected on baseline characteristics and serial laboratory data during index hospitalization. Primary exposure variables were CKD (categorized as no CKD, CKD, and end-stage kidney disease) and AKI (classified into no AKI or stages 1, 2, or 3 using a modification of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guideline definition). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The key secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, new-onset nonfatal heart failure, and nonfatal cardiogenic shock. CKD and end-stage kidney disease were not associated with mortality or major adverse cardiac events after multivariate adjustment. In contrast, AKI was significantly associated with mortality (stage 1 hazard ratio [HR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.46-2.03]; stage 2 HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.52-2.20]; stage 3 HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.44-1.98]; versus no AKI) and major adverse cardiac events (stage 1 HR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.74-2.71]; stage 2 HR, 2.70 [95% CI, 2.07-3.51]; stage 3 HR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.52-3.72]; versus no AKI). Conclusions This large study demonstrates a significant association between AKI and all-cause mortality and, for the first time, major adverse cardiovascular events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Background: Professional society guidelines are emerging for cardiovascular care in cancer patients. However, it is not yet clear how effectively the cancer survivor population is screened and treated for cardiomyopathy in contemporary clinical practice. As electronic health records (EHRs) are now widely used in clinical practice, we tested the hypothesis that an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry can address these questions., Objective: The aim of this study was to develop an EHR-based pragmatic cardio-oncology registry and, as proof of principle, to investigate care gaps in the cardiovascular care of cancer patients., Methods: We generated a programmatically deidentified, real-time EHR-based cardio-oncology registry from all patients in our institutional Cancer Population Registry (N=8275, 2011-2017). We investigated: (1) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment before and after treatment with potentially cardiotoxic agents; and (2) guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), defined as LVEF<50%, and symptomatic heart failure with reduced LVEF (HFrEF), defined as LVEF<50% and Problem List documentation of systolic congestive heart failure or dilated cardiomyopathy., Results: Rapid development of an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry was feasible. Identification of tests and outcomes was similar using the EHR-based cardio-oncology registry and manual chart abstraction (100% sensitivity and 83% specificity for LVD). LVEF was documented prior to initiation of cancer therapy in 19.8% of patients. Prevalence of postchemotherapy LVD and HFrEF was relatively low (9.4% and 2.5%, respectively). Among patients with postchemotherapy LVD or HFrEF, those referred to cardiology had a significantly higher prescription rate of a GDMT., Conclusions: EHR data can efficiently populate a real-time, pragmatic cardio-oncology registry as a byproduct of clinical care for health care delivery investigations., (©Alvin Chandra, Steven T Philips, Ambarish Pandey, Mujeeb Basit, Vaishnavi Kannan, Evan J Sara, Sandeep R Das, Simon J C Lee, Barbara Haley, DuWayne L Willett, Vlad G Zaha. Originally published in JMIR Cardio (https://cardio.jmir.org), 12.05.2021.)

Importance: In-hospital mortality rates from COVID-19 are high but appear to be decreasing for selected locations in the United States. It is not known whether this is because of changes in the characteristics of patients being admitted., Objective: To describe changing in-hospital mortality rates over time after accounting for individual patient characteristics., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of 20 736 adults with a diagnosis of COVID-19 who were included in the US American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry and admitted to 107 acute care hospitals in 31 states from March through November 2020. A multiple mixed-effects logistic regression was then used to estimate the odds of in-hospital death adjusted for patient age, sex, body mass index, and medical history as well as vital signs, use of supplemental oxygen, presence of pulmonary infiltrates at admission, and hospital site., Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital death adjusted for exposures for 4 periods in 2020., Results: The registry included 20 736 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from March through November 2020 (9524 women [45.9%]; mean [SD] age, 61.2 [17.9] years); 3271 patients (15.8%) died in the hospital. Mortality rates were 19.1% in March and April, 11.9% in May and June, 11.0% in July and August, and 10.8% in September through November. Compared with March and April, the adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital death were significantly lower in May and June (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.76; P < .001), July and August (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.49-0.69; P < .001), and September through November (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, high rates of in-hospital COVID-19 mortality among registry patients in March and April 2020 decreased by more than one-third by June and remained near that rate through November. This difference in mortality rates between the months of March and April and later months persisted even after adjusting for age, sex, medical history, and COVID-19 disease severity and did not appear to be associated with changes in the characteristics of patients being admitted.

Background: Out-of-pocket costs are a serious barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy. Understanding of these costs can lead to care oriented around the limits they generate. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education., Objective: To define a potential knowledge gap regarding costs experienced by patients by surveying Internal Medicine residents at our large academic institution., Methods: We surveyed Internal Medicine residents in spring 2019 about knowledge and practices surrounding patient out-of-pocket costs. Participants answered questions considering their most recent inpatient panel and their clinic patient panel. Familiarity was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and for the purposes of presentation, was divided into "Poor" and "Moderate or Better." Non-parametric analysis was used to test differences between outpatients and inpatients and by year of training., Results: Of 159 residents, 109 (67%) responded. Familiarity with patient insurance status was moderate or better in 85%. Reported understanding of costs associated with medications, testing, and clinic visits was less common. Respondents had higher familiarity with out-of-pocket costs for clinic patients compared with inpatients. Knowledge of cost of care was not an often-considered factor in decision making. There was no significant difference in response by year of training., Conclusion: Patient out-of-pocket costs are an important dimension of patient care which Internal Medicine Trainees at our institution do not confidently understand or utilize. Improvements in education around this topic may enable more patient-centered care., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interests:The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive chronic disease and is an established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Until recently, the cardiovascular safety and efficacy of antihyperglycemic drugs remained uncertain. However, after the changes in regulatory guidance in 2008, a wealth of data has been generated, expanding the focus of the treatment of diabetes from blood glucose control to the prevention of macro-and microvascular complications and improvement in mortality. This article will review cardiovascular outcome trials of antihyperglycemic agents and provide overview of ongoing trials., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Obesity may contribute to adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, studies of large, broadly generalizable patient populations are lacking, and the effect of body mass index (BMI) on COVID-19 outcomes- particularly in younger adults-remains uncertain., Methods: We analyzed data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 88 US hospitals enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with data collection through July 22, 2020. BMI was stratified by World Health Organization obesity class, with normal weight prespecified as the reference group., Results: Obesity, and, in particular, class III obesity, was overrepresented in the registry in comparison with the US population, with the largest differences among adults ≤50 years. Among 7606 patients, in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation occurred in 2109 (27.7%), in-hospital death in 1302 (17.1%), and mechanical ventilation in 1602 (21.1%). After multivariable adjustment, classes I to III obesity were associated with higher risks of in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09-1.51], 1.57 [1.29-1.91], 1.80 [1.47-2.20], respectively), and class III obesity was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.00-1.58]). Overweight and class I to III obese individuals were at higher risk for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09-1.51], 1.54 [1.29-1.84], 1.88 [1.52-2.32], and 2.08 [1.68-2.58], respectively). Significant BMI by age interactions were seen for all primary end points ( P -interaction<0.05 for each), such that the association of BMI with death or mechanical ventilation was strongest in adults ≤50 years, intermediate in adults 51 to 70 years, and weakest in adults >70 years. Severe obesity (BMI ≥40 kg/m 2 ) was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death only in those ≤50 years (hazard ratio, 1.36 [1.01-1.84]). In adjusted analyses, higher BMI was associated with dialysis initiation and with venous thromboembolism but not with major adverse cardiac events., Conclusions: Obese patients are more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19, and are at higher risk of in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation, in particular, if young (age ≤50 years). Obese patients are also at higher risk for venous thromboembolism and dialysis. These observations support clear public health messaging and rigorous adherence to COVID-19 prevention strategies in all obese individuals regardless of age.

Importance: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapies are a cornerstone of prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. With the introduction of generic formulations and the release of new therapies, including proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, contemporary Medicare utilization of these therapies remains unknown., Objective: To determine trends in utilization and spending on brand-name and generic LDL-C-lowering therapies and to estimate potential savings if all Medicare beneficiaries were switched to available therapeutically equivalent generic formulations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed prescription drug utilization and cost trend data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data set from 2014 to 2018 for LDL-C-lowering therapies. A total of 11 LDL-C-lowering drugs with 25 formulations, including 16 brand-name and 9 generic formulations, were included. Data were collected and analyzed from October 2019 to June 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries, annual spending, and spending per beneficiary for all formulations., Results: The total number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries ranged from 37 720 840 in 2014 to 44 249 461 in 2018. The number of Medicare beneficiaries taking LDL-C-lowering therapies increased by 23% (from 20.5 million in 2014 to 25.2 million in 2018), while the associated Medicare expenditure decreased by 46% (from $6.3 billion in 2014 to $3.3 billion in 2018). Lower expenditure was driven by greater uptake of generic statin and ezetimibe and a concurrent rapid decline in the use of their brand-name formulations. Medicare spent $9.6 billion on brand-name statins and ezetimibe and could have saved $2.1 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively, if brand-name formulations were switched to equivalent generic versions when available. The number of beneficiaries using PCSK9 inhibitors since their introduction in 2015 has been modest, although use has increased by 144% (from 25 569 in 2016 to 62 476 in 2018) and total spending has increased by 199% (from $164 million in 2016 to $491 million in 2018)., Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2014 and 2018, LDL-C-lowering therapies were used by 4.8 million more Medicare beneficiaries annually, with an associated $3.0 billion decline in Medicare spending. This cost reduction was driven by the rapid transition from brand-name formulations to lower-cost generic formulations of statins and ezetimibe. Use of PCSK9 inhibitions, although low, increased over time and could have broad implications on future Medicare spending.

Background: The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility allowing low-income individuals greater access to health care. However, the uptake of state Medicaid expansion has been variable. It remains unclear how the Medicaid expansion was associated with the temporal trends in use of evidence-based cardiovascular drugs., Methods: We used the publicly available Medicaid Drug Utilization and Current Population Survey to extract filled prescription rates per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries of statins, antihypertensives, P2Y12 inhibitors, and direct oral anticoagulants. We defined expander states as those who expanded Medicaid on or before January 1, 2014, and nonexpander states as those who had not expanded by December 31, 2018. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare the association of the Medicaid expansion with per-capita cardiovascular drug prescription rates in expander versus nonexpander states., Results: Between 2011 and 2018, the total number of prescriptions among all Medicaid beneficiaries increased, with gains of 89.7% in statins (11.0 to 20.8 million), 76% in antihypertensives (35.3 to 62.2 million), and 37% in P2Y12 inhibitors (1.7 to 2.3 million). Medicaid expansion was associated with significantly greater increases in quarterly prescriptions (per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries) of statins (DID estimate [95% CI]: 22.5 [16.5-28.6], P <0.001), antihypertensives (DID estimate [95% CI]: 63.2 [47.3-79.1], P <0.001), and P2Y12 inhibitors (DID estimate [95% CI]: 1.7 [1.2-2.2], P <0.001). Between 2013 and 2018, >75% of the expander states had increases in prescription rates of both statins and antihypertensives. In contrast, 44% of nonexpander states saw declines in statins and antihypertensives. The Medicaid expansion was not associated with higher direct oral anticoagulants prescription rates (DID estimate [95% CI] 0.9 [-0.3 to 2.1], P =0.142)., Conclusions: The 2014 Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant increase in per-capita utilization of cardiovascular prescription drugs among Medicaid beneficiaries. These gains in utilization may contribute to long-term cardiovascular benefits to lower-income and previously underinsured populations.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Objectives: Previous studies have implicated therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), by measuring serum or urine drug levels, as a highly reliable technique for detecting medication non-adherence but the attitudes of patients and physicians toward TDM have not been evaluated previously. Accordingly, we solicited input from patients with uncontrolled hypertension and their physicians about their views on TDM., Design: Prospective analysis of responses to a set of questions during semistructured interviews., Setting: Outpatient clinics in an integrated health system which provides care for a low-income, uninsured population., Participants: Patients with uncontrolled hypertension with either systolic blood pressure of at least 130 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 80 mm Hg despite antihypertensive drugs and providers in the general cardiology and internal medicine clinics., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Attitudes towards TDM and the potential impact on physician-patient relationship., Results: We interviewed 11 patients and 10 providers and discussed the findings with 13 community advisory panel (CAP) members. Of the patients interviewed, 91% (10 of 11) and all 10 providers thought TDM was a good idea and should be used regularly to better understand the reasons for poorly controlled hypertension. However, 63% (7 of 11) of patients and 20% of providers expressed reservations that TDM could negatively impact the physician-patient relationship. Despite some concerns, the majority of patients, providers and CAP members believed that if test results are communicated without blaming patients, the potential benefits of TDM in identifying suboptimal adherence and eliciting barriers to adherence outweighed the risks., Conclusion: The idea of TDM is well accepted by patients and their providers. TDM information if delivered in a non-judgmental manner, to encourage an honest conversation between patients and physicians, has the potential to reduce patient-physician communication obstacles and to identify barriers to adherence which, when overcome, can improve health outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Heart failure (HF) incidence is declining among Medicare beneficiaries. However, the epidemiological mechanisms underlying this decline are not well understood., Objective: To evaluate trends in HF incidence across risk factor strata., Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective, national cohort study of 5% of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with no prior HF followed up from 2011 to 2016. The study examined annual trends in HF incidence among groups with and without primary HF risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and obesity) and predisposing cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction [MI] and atrial fibrillation [AF])., Exposures: The presence of comorbid HF risk factors including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, acute MI, and AF identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident HF, defined using at least 1 inpatient HF claim or at least 2 outpatient HF claims among those without a previous diagnosis of HF., Results: Of 1 799 027 unique Medicare beneficiaries at risk for HF (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 68-79 years]; 56% female [805 060-796 253 participants during the study period]), 249 832 had a new diagnosis of HF. The prevalence of all 5 risk factors increased over time (0.8% mean increase in hypertension per year, 1.9% increase in diabetes, 2.9% increase in obesity, 0.2% increase in acute MI, and 0.4% increase in AF). Heart failure incidence declined from 35.7 cases per 1000 beneficiaries in 2011 to 26.5 cases per 1000 beneficiaries in 2016, consistent across subgroups based on sex and race/ethnicity. A greater decline in HF incidence was observed among patients with prevalent hypertension (relative excess decline, 12%), diabetes (relative excess decline, 3%), and obesity (relative excess decline, 16%) compared with those without corresponding risk factors. In contrast, there was a relative increase in HF incidence among individuals with acute MI (26% vs no acute MI) and AF (22% vs no AF)., Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study suggest that the temporal decline in HF incidence among Medicare beneficiaries reflects a decrease in HF incidence among those with primary HF risk factors. The increase in HF incidence among those with acute MI and those with AF highlights potential targets for future HF prevention strategies.

Background: In response to the public health emergency created by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, American Heart Association volunteers and staff aimed to rapidly develop and launch a resource for the medical and research community to expedite scientific advancement through shared learning, quality improvement, and research. In <4 weeks after it was first announced on April 3, 2020, AHA's COVID-19 CVD Registry powered by Get With The Guidelines received its first clinical records., Methods and Results: Participating hospitals are enrolling consecutive hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 disease, regardless of CVD status. This hospital quality improvement program will allow participating hospitals and health systems to evaluate patient-level data including mortality rates, intensive care unit bed days, and ventilator days from individual review of electronic medical records of sequential adult patients with active COVID-19 infection. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite, rapid quality improvement, and benchmarking versus other institutions. After 9 weeks, >130 sites have enrolled in the program and >4000 records have been abstracted in the national dataset. Additionally, the aggregate dataset will be a valuable data resource for the medical research community., Conclusions: The AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry will support greater understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular disease and will inform best practices for evaluation and management of patients with COVID-19.

Objectives: Patients with severe hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 ​mg/dL) have a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are more likely to have familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We sought to determine how often health care providers recognize the implications of and adjust therapy for an LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with an LDL-C measurement in the medical record of a large health care system between November 2015 and June 2016. Patients were restricted to those with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL and without secondary causes of dyslipidemia, with sensitivity analyses for those with LDL-C ≥220 ​mg/dL., Results: Of 27,963 patients, 227 had LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL. Only 21% were on a statin at the time of LDL-C measurement. More than 90% had a follow-up clinic visit, but 41% had no change in treatment. FH was only included in the differential for 14%. The presence/absence of a family history of dyslipidemia, myocardial infarction, and premature CVD were documented in 26%, 29%, and 31%. Only 20.7% and 22.1% had documentation of the presence or absence of tendinous xanthomas or corneal arcus, respectively. Among those without prior specialist care (cardiologist or endocrinologist), only 13% were referred. These measures were only slightly better for those with LDL-C ≥220 ​mg/dL., Conclusion: In a large health care system, the possibility of FH was rarely acknowledged in those with residual LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL, few were referred to specialists, and therapeutic adjustments were suboptimal. Additional efforts are required to understand barriers to improving the evaluation and management of patients with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dr Ahmad reports grants from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Akcea, grants from the National Institutes of Health–National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and grants from the Familial Hypercholesterolemia Foundation., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

Importance: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) protocols for the evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED) may reduce unnecessary resource use and overcrowding., Objective: To determine whether the implementation of a novel hs-cTnT protocol, which incorporated troponin values drawn at 0, 1, and 3 hours after ED presentation and the modified HEART score (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors), was associated with improvements in resource use while maintaining safety., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study from Parkland Health and Hospital System, a large safety net hospital in Dallas, Texas, included data on 31 543 unique ED encounters in which patients underwent electrocardiographic and troponin testing from January 1, 2017, to October 16, 2018. The hs-cTnT protocol was implemented in December 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: Resource use outcomes included trends in ED dwell time, troponin to disposition decision time (the difference between the first troponin draw time and the time an order was placed for inpatient admission, admission to observation, or discharge), and final patient disposition. Safety outcomes included readmission for myocardial infarction and death., Results: In 31 543 encounters, mean (SD) patient age was 54 (14.4) years and 14 675 patients (48%) were female. Department dwell time decreased by a mean of -1.09 (95% CI, -2.81 to 0.64) minutes per month in the preintervention period. The decline was steeper after the intervention (-4.69 [95% CI, -9.05 to -0.33] minutes per month) (P for interaction = .007). The troponin to disposition time was increasing in the preintervention period by 1.72 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.36) minutes per month; postintervention, the mean difference increased more slowly (0.37 [95% CI, -1.25 to 1.99 minutes per month; P value for interaction = .007]). The proportion of patients discharged from the ED increased after the intervention (48% vs 54%, P < .001). Thirty-day major adverse cardiac event rates were low and did not differ before and after the intervention., Conclusions and Relevance: Implementation of a novel protocol incorporating serial hs-cTnT measurements over 3 hours with the Modified HEART Score was associated with reduction in ED dwell times and attenuation of temporal increases in time from troponin measurement to disposition. This or similar protocols to rule out myocardial infarction have the potential to reduce ED overcrowding and improve health care quality while maintaining safety.

Importance: In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 2 new medications for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine. However, few national data are available examining their contemporary use and associated costs., Objective: To evaluate national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine and associated therapeutic spending in Medicare Part D and Medicaid., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this US nationwide claims-based study, we analyzed data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event and Medicaid Utilization and Spending data sets to compare national patterns of use of sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine between 2016 and 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in total spending, per-beneficiary/claim spending, number of beneficiaries, and number of claims between 2016 and 2017 for sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine., Results: The number of Medicare beneficiaries prescribed sacubitril/valsartan increased from 35 423 to 90 606 (156% increase from 2016 to 2017). Medicare beneficiaries prescribed ivabradine increased from 15 856 to 23 213 (46% increase). In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $227 million and $7.3 million on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine, respectively. This represented increases of 241% and 59% compared with 2016 spending, respectively. The annual Medicare per-beneficiary spending on sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was $2512 and $2400. Parallel trends in use patterns and spending were observed among Medicaid beneficiaries., Conclusions and Relevance: Although initial experiences suggested slow uptake after regulatory approval, these national data demonstrate an increase in use of sacubitril/valsartan and, to a lesser degree, ivabradine in the United States. Current annual per-beneficiary expenditures remain less than spending thresholds that have been reported to be cost-effective. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote high-value care while improving affordability and access to established and emerging heart failure therapies.

Importance: The United States spends more money on medications than any other country. Most extended-release drugs have not consistently shown therapeutic or adherence superiority, and switching these medications to less expensive, generic, immediate-release formulations may offer an opportunity to reduce health care spending., Objective: To evaluate Medicare Part D and Medicaid spending on extended-release drug formulations and the potential savings associated with switching to generic immediate-release formulations., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the 2012 to 2017 Medicare Part D Drug Event and Medicaid Spending and Utilization data sets to analyze 20 extended-release drugs with 37 Medicare formulations and 36 Medicaid formulations. Only cardiovascular, diabetes, neurologic, and psychiatric extended-release drugs saving at most 1 additional daily dose compared with their immediate-release counterparts were included. Extended-release drugs with therapeutic superiority were excluded. Analyses were conducted from January to December 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated Medicare Part D and Medicaid savings from switching extended-release to immediate-release drug formulations between 2012 and 2017., Results: Of the 6252 drugs screened for eligibility from the 2017 Medicaid Drug Utilization database and the 2017 Medicare Part D database, 67 drugs with extended-release formulations that were identified in the Medicare data set (20 distinct drugs with 37 formulations [19 brand, 18 generic]) were included in the analysis. In 2017, Medicare Part D spent $2.2 billion and Medicaid spent $952 million (a combined $3.1 billion) on 20 extended-release drugs. Between 2012 and 2017, Medicare Part D and Medicaid spent $12 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, on extended-release formulations. Switching from brand-name to generic extended-release formulations was estimated to be associated with a $247 million reduction in Medicare spending and $299 million reduction in Medicaid spending in 2017, whereas switching all brand-name and generic extended-release formulations to immediate-release formulations in both Medicare and Medicaid was estimated to reduce spending by $2.6 billion ($1.8 billion for Medicare and $836 million for Medicaid) in 2017. During the study period, the estimated spending reduction associated with switching all patients receiving extended-release formulations (brand name extended-release and generic extended-release) to generic immediate-release formulations was $13.7 billion ($8.5 billion from Medicare and $5.2 billion from Medicaid)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that switching from extended-release drug formulations to therapeutically equivalent immediate-release formulations when available represents a potential option to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending.

Importance: The association of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) with reductions in racial disparities in 30-day outcomes for myocardial infarction (MI), is unknown, including whether this varies by HRRP hospital penalty status., Objective: To assess temporal trends in 30-day readmission and mortality rates among black and nonblack patients discharged after hospitalization for acute MI at low-performing and high-performing hospitals, as defined by readmission penalty status after HRRP implementation., Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational cohort analysis used data from the multicenter National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI Registry centers that were subject to the first cycle of HRRP, between January 1, 2008, and November 30, 2016. All patients hospitalized with MI who were included in National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI Registry were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to September 2019., Exposures: Hospital performance category and race (black compared with nonblack patients). Centers were classified as high performing or low performing based on the excess readmission ratio (predicted to expected 30-day risk adjusted readmission rate) for MI during the first HRRP cycle (in October 2012)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day all-cause readmission and mortality rates., Results: Among 753 hospitals that treated 155 397 patients with acute MI (of whom 11 280 [7.3%] were black), 399 hospitals (53.0%) were high performing. Thirty-day readmission rates declined over time in both black and nonblack patients (annualized 30-day readmission rate: 17.9% vs 20.8%). Black (compared with nonblack) race was associated with higher unadjusted odds of 30-day readmission in both low-performing and high-performing centers (odds ratios: before HRRP: low-performing hospitals, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]; P = .01; high-performing hospitals, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.32]; P = .01; after HRRP: low-performing hospitals, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13-1.34]; P < .001; high-performing hospitals, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.12-1.39]; P < .001). However, these racial differences were not significant after adjustment for patient characteristics. The 30-day mortality rates declined significantly over time in nonblack patients, with stable (nonsignificant) temporal trends among black patients. Adjusted associations between race and 30-day mortality showed that 30-day mortality rates were significantly lower among black (compared with nonblack) patients in the low-performing hospitals (odds ratios: pre-HRRP, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.97]; P = .03; post-HRRP, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]; P = .01) but not in high-performing hospitals. Finally, the association between race and 30-day outcomes did not vary after the HRRP period began in either high-performing or low-performing hospitals., Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis, 30-day readmission rates among patients with MI declined over time for both black and nonblack patients. Differences in race-specific 30-day readmission rates persisted but appeared to be attributable to patient-level factors. The 30-day mortality rates have declined for nonblack patients and remained stable among black patients. Implementation of the HRRP was not associated with improvement or worsening of racial disparities in readmission and mortality rates.

Background: Medication nonadherence is associated with worse outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a group who requires long-term therapy for secondary prevention. It is important to understand to what extent drug costs, which are potentially actionable factors, contribute to medication nonadherence., Methods: In a nationally representative survey of US adults in the National Health Interview Survey (2013-2017), we identified individuals ≥18 years with a reported history of ASCVD. Participants were considered to have experienced cost-related nonadherence (CRN) if in the preceding 12 months they reported skipping doses to save money, taking less medication to save money, or delaying filling a prescription to save money. We used survey analysis to obtain national estimates., Results: Of the 14 279 surveyed individuals with ASCVD, a weighted 12.6% (or 2.2 million [95% CI, 2.1-2.4]) experienced CRN, including 8.6% or 1.5 million missing doses, 8.8% or 1.6 million taking lower than prescribed doses, and 10.5% or 1.9 million intentionally delaying a medication fill to save costs. Age <65 years, female sex, low family income, lack of health insurance, and high comorbidity burden were independently associated with CRN, with >1 in 5 reporting CRN in these subgroups. Survey respondents with CRN compared with those without CRN had 10.8-fold higher odds of requesting low-cost medications and 8.9-fold higher odds of using alternative, nonprescription, therapies., Conclusions: One in 8 patients with ASCVD reports nonadherence to medications because of cost. The removal of financial barriers to accessing medications, particularly among vulnerable patient groups, may help improve adherence to essential therapy to reduce ASCVD morbidity and mortality.