Search

BACKGROUND Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-vmj-10.1177_1358863X221098097 for Variability in 30-day major amputation rates following endovascular peripheral vascular intervention for critical limb ischemia by Jeremy B Provance, John A Spertus, Philip G Jones, Mark A Hoffman, Matthew C Bunte, Todd R Vogel, Carlos Mena-Hurtado and Kim G Smolderen in Vascular Medicine

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-vmj-10.1177_1358863X221098097 for Variability in 30-day major amputation rates following endovascular peripheral vascular intervention for critical limb ischemia by Jeremy B Provance, John A Spertus, Philip G Jones, Mark A Hoffman, Matthew C Bunte, Todd R Vogel, Carlos Mena-Hurtado and Kim G Smolderen in Vascular Medicine

BackgroundHealth status outcomes are increasingly being promoted as measures of health care quality, given their importance to patients. In heart failure (HF), an American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force proposed using the proportion of patients with preserved health status as a quality measure but not as a performance measure because risk adjustment methods were not available.MethodsWe built risk adjustment models for alive with preserved health status and for preserved health status alone in a prospective registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction across 146 US centers between December 2015 and October 2017. Preserved health status was defined as not having a ≥5-point decrease in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary score at 1 year. Using only patient-level characteristics, hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were developed for 1-year outcomes and validated using data from 1 to 2 years. We examined model calibration, discrimination, and variability in sites' unadjusted and adjusted rates.ResultsAmong 3932 participants (median age [interquartile range] 68 years [59-75], 29.7% female, 75.4% White), 2703 (68.7%) were alive with preserved health status, 902 (22.9%) were alive without preserved health status, and 327 (8.3%) had died by 1 year. The final risk adjustment model for alive with preserved health status included baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary, age, race, employment status, annual income, body mass index, depression, atrial fibrillation, renal function, number of hospitalizations in the past 1 year, and duration of HF (optimism-corrected C statistic=0.62 with excellent calibration). Similar results were observed when deaths were ignored. The risk standardized proportion of patients alive with preserved health status across the 146 sites ranged from 62% at the 10th percentile to 75% at the 90th percentile. Variability across sites was modest and changed minimally with risk adjustment.ConclusionsThrough leveraging data from a large, outpatient, observational registry, we identified key factors to risk adjust sites' proportions of patients with preserved health status. These data lay the foundation for building quality measures that quantify treatment outcomes from patients' perspectives.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Patient characteristics according to documentation of heart failure, stratified by physician specialty.

Supplemental material, VMJ785026_Supplemental_Table_1 for Associations of exercise ankle–brachial index, pain-free walking distance and maximum walking distance with the Peripheral Artery Questionnaire: Finding from the PORTRAIT PAD Registry by Tarek A Hammad, Kim G Smolderen, John A Spertus, Philip G Jones and Mehdi H Shishehbor in Vascular Medicine

Some studies suggest that female practitioners are more likely to provide guideline-concordant care than male practitioners; however, little is known about the role of practitioner gender in cardiology.The aim of the study was to measure the association between practitioner gender and adherence to the cardiovascular performance measures in the American College of Cardiology's ambulatory Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry.Patients with at least 1 outpatient visit with a unique practitioner were included. Among eligible patients, adherence to 7 guideline-supported performance measures for coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation over 12 months after registry entry was compared by practitioner gender using hierarchical models adjusting for practitioner type (physicians vs advance practice practitioners) and number of visits.The study cohort included 1493 individual practitioners who saw 769 139 patients; 80% of practitioners were men. Male practitioners were more often physicians compared with female practitioners (98.2% vs 43.7%, P.01). Accounting for practitioner category and visit frequency, guideline adherence rates were similar by practitioner gender for all measures with the exception of marginally higher rates for coronary artery disease performance measures for male practitioners compared with female practitioners (antiplatelet: rate ratio [RR] = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.09; β-blockers: RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; and lipid-lowering drug: RR = 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.10) and atrial fibrillation (oral anticoagulants: RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09).Male practitioners marginally outperformed their female counterparts in ambulatory practices enrolled in a voluntary cardiovascular performance improvement registry program. Overall low adherence to some performance measures suggests room for improvement among all practitioners.

Missing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data in longitudinal studies can reduce precision and power and bias results. Using INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support), we sought to identify factors associated with missing HRQOL data, examine the impact of these factors on estimated HRQOL assuming missing at random missingness, and perform sensitivity analyses to examine missing not at random (MNAR) missingness because of illness severity.INTERMACS patients (n=3248) with a preimplantation profile of 1 (critical cardiogenic shock) or 2 (progressive decline) were assessed with the EQ-5D-3L visual analog scale and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 summary scores pre-implantation and 3 months postoperatively. Mean and median observed and missing at random-imputed HRQOL scores were calculated, followed by sensitivity analyses. Independent factors associated with HRQOL scores and missing HRQOL assessments were determined using multivariable regression. Independent factors associated with preimplantation and 3-month HRQOL scores, and with the likelihood of missing HRQOL assessments, revealed few correlates of HRQOL and missing assessments (We recommend use of sensitivity analyses using an MNAR imputation strategy for longitudinal studies when missingness is attributable to illness severity. Conduct of MNAR sensitivity analyses may be less critical after mechanical circulatory support implant, when there are likely fewer MNAR data.

Background: Clinical trials have established the average benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but estimating benefit for individual patients remains difficult because of the heterogeneity in treatment response. Accordingly, we created a multivariable model to predict changes in quality of life (QoL) with and without CRT.\ud \ud Methods and Results: Patient-level data from 5 randomized trials comparing CRT with no CRT were used to create a prediction model of change in QoL at 3 months using a partial proportional odds model for no change, small, moderate, and large improvement, or deterioration of any magnitude. The C statistics for not worsening or obtaining at least a small, moderate, and large improvement were calculated. Among the 3614 patients, regardless of assigned treatment, 33.3% had a deterioration in QoL, 9.2% had no change, 9.2% had a small improvement, 13.5% had a moderate improvement, and the remaining 34.9% had a large improvement. Patients undergoing CRT were less likely to have a decrement in their QoL (28.2% versus 38.9%; P

In SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), patients with hypertension and high cardiovascular risk treated with intensive blood pressure (BP) control (120 mm Hg) had fewer major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and deaths but higher rates of treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) than patients randomized to standard BP control (140 mm Hg). However, the degree of benefit or harm for an individual patient could vary because of heterogeneity in treatment effect.Using patient-level data from 9361 randomized patients in SPRINT, we developed models to predict risk for MACE or death and treatment-related SAE to allow for individualized BP treatment goals based on each patient's projected risk and benefit of intensive versus standard BP control. Models were internally validated using bootstrap resampling and externally validated on 4741 patients from the ACCORD-BP (The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure) trial. Among 9361 SPRINT patients, 755 patients (8.1%) had a MACE or death event and 338 patients (3.6%) had a treatment-related SAE during a median follow-up of 3.3 years. The MACE/death and the SAE model had C statistics of 0.72 and 0.70, respectively, in the derivation cohort and 0.69 and 0.65 in ACCORD. The MACE/death model had 10 variables including treatment interactions with age, baseline systolic BP, and diastolic BP, and the SAE model had 8 variables including treatment interaction with number of BP medications. Intensive BP treatment was associated with a mean 2.2±2.6% lower risk of MACE/death compared with standard treatment (range, 20.7% lower risk to 19.6% greater risk among individual patients) and a mean 2.2±1.2% higher risk for SAEs (range, 0.5%-15.8% more harm in individual patients).To translate the findings from SPRINT to clinical practice, we developed prediction models to tailor the intensity of BP control based on the projected risk and benefit for each unique patient. This approach should be prospectively tested to better engage patients in shared medical decision making and to improve outcomes.URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Rehospitalizations after acute myocardial infarction for unplanned coronary revascularization and unstable angina (UA) are common. However, despite the inclusion of these events in composite end points of many clinical trials, their association with health status has not been studied.We included 3283 patients with acute myocardial infarction enrolled in a prospective, 24-center US study who had rehospitalizations independently classified by experienced cardiologists. Health status was assessed using Seattle Angina Questionnaire and EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale. In the propensity-matched cohorts, 1-year health status was compared between those who did and did not experience rehospitalization for UA or revascularization using a hierarchical linear model. Overall, mean age was 59 years, 33% were women, and 70% were white. Rehospitalization rates for UA and unplanned revascularization at 1 year were 4.3% and 4.7%. One-year Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary scores were worse in patients with rehospitalizations for UA (mean difference, -10.1; 95% confidence interval, -12.4 to -7.9) and unplanned revascularization (mean difference, -5.7; 95% confidence interval, -8.8 to -2.5) when compared with patients without such rehospitalizations. Similarly, EuroQol-5D Visual Analog Scale scores were worse among patients with such readmissions. Individual Seattle Angina Questionnaire domains indicated worse 1-year angina and quality of life outcomes among patients rehospitalized for UA or unplanned revascularization.Within the first year after acute myocardial infarction, rehospitalizations for UA and unplanned revascularization are associated with worse health status. These findings highlight the impact of such events from a patient's perspective, beyond their economic impact and support the use of UA and unplanned revascularization as elements of composite end points.

ObjectivesThe Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument (Stroke-TPI) predicts the probability of good and bad outcomes with and without recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA). We sought to rebuild and externally validate a simpler Stroke-TPI to support implementation in routine clinical care.MethodsUsing the original derivation cohort of 1,983 patients from a combined database of randomized clinical trials (NINDS [National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke] 1 and 2; ATLANTIS [Alteplase Thrombolysis for Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke] A and B; and ECASS [European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study] II), we simplified the Stroke-TPI by reducing variables and interaction terms and by exploring simpler (3- and 8-item) stroke severity scores. External validation was performed in the ECASS III trial (n = 821).ResultsThe following 6 variables were most predictive of good outcomes: age, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, stroke severity, symptom onset to treatment time, and rtPA therapy. Treatment effect modifiers included onset to treatment time and systolic blood pressure. For the models predicting a bad outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score ≥5), significant variables included age, stroke severity, and serum glucose. rtPA therapy did not change the risk of a poor outcome. Compared with models using the full NIH Stroke Scale, models using the 3-item severity score showed similar discrimination and excellent calibration. External validation on ECASS III showed similar performance (C statistics 0.75 [mRS score ≤1] and 0.80 [mRS score ≤2]).ConclusionA simpler model using a 3-item stroke severity score, instead of the 15-item NIH Stroke Scale, has similar prognostic value and may be easier to use in routine care. Future studies are needed to test whether it can improve process and clinical outcomes.

ObjectivesWe sought to investigate the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in preventing the new onset of type 2 diabetes mellitus.BackgroundDiabetes is a public health problem of epidemic proportions and its prevalence is on the rise. The typical American born today has a one in three chance of developing type 2 diabetes. This diagnosis is associated with an adverse cardiovascular prognosis and is considered the risk equivalent of established coronary disease. Even in high-risk individuals, diabetes is a preventable disease. Several studies have shown that ACE inhibitors and ARBs decrease the incidence of new-onset type 2 diabetes. However, the exact role of these agents in diabetes prevention has not yet been fully elucidated.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled clinical trials of ACE inhibitors or ARBs, identified through a MEDLINE search and a review of reports from scientific meetings, to study the efficacy of these medications in diabetes prevention.ResultsThis showed that ACE inhibitors and ARBs were associated with reductions in the incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes by 27% and 23%, respectively, and by 25% in the pooled analysis.ConclusionsThe use of an ACE inhibitor or ARB should be considered in patients with pre-diabetic conditions such as metabolic syndrome, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, family history of diabetes, obesity, congestive heart failure, or coronary heart disease.

ObjectivesWe examined compliance with performance measures for 14,464 patients enrolled from July 2008 through June 2009 into the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE (Practice Innovation And Clinical Excellence) program to provide initial insights into the quality of outpatient cardiac care.BackgroundLittle is known about the quality of care of outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and atrial fibrillation, and whether sex and racial disparities exist in the treatment of outpatients.MethodsThe PINNACLE program is the first, national, prospective office-based quality improvement program of cardiac patients designed, in part, to capture, report, and improve outpatient performance measure compliance. We examined the proportion of patients whose care was compliant with established American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and American Medical Association-Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (ACC/AHA/PCPI) performance measures for CAD, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.ResultsThere were 14,464 unique patients enrolled from 27 U.S. practices, accounting for 18,021 clinical visits. Of these, 8,132 (56.4%) had CAD, 5,012 (34.7%) had heart failure, and 2,786 (19.3%) had nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Data from the PINNACLE program were feasibly collected for 24 of 25 ACC/AHA/PCPI performance measures. Compliance with performance measures ranged from being very low (e.g., 13.3% of CAD patients screened for diabetes mellitus) to very high (e.g., 96.7% of heart failure patients with blood pressure assessments), with moderate (70% to 90%) compliance observed for most performance measures. For 3 performance measures, there were small differences in compliance rates by race or sex.ConclusionsFor more than 14,000 patients enrolled from 27 practices in the outpatient PINNACLE program, we found that compliance with performance measures was variable, even after accounting for exclusion criteria, suggesting an important opportunity to improve the quality of outpatient care.

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the efficacy of ranolazine versus placebo on weekly angina frequency and sublingual nitroglycerin use in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease (CAD), and chronic stable angina who remain symptomatic despite treatment with up to 2 antianginal agents.BackgroundPatients with diabetes have more extensive CAD than those without diabetes, and a high burden of angina. Ranolazine is not only effective in treating angina but also may improve glycemic control, thus providing several potential benefits in this high-risk group. We conducted a randomized trial to test the antianginal benefit of ranolazine in patients with diabetes and stable angina.MethodsTERISA (Type 2 Diabetes Evaluation of Ranolazine in Subjects With Chronic Stable Angina) was an international, randomized, double-blind trial of ranolazine versus placebo in patients with diabetes, CAD, and stable angina treated with 1 to 2 antianginals. After a single-blind, 4-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind ranolazine (target dose 1000 mg bid) or placebo. Anginal episodes and nitroglycerin use were recorded with daily entry into a novel electronic diary. Primary outcome was the average weekly number of anginal episodes over the last 6 weeks of the study.ResultsA total of 949 patients were randomized across 104 centers in 14 countries. Mean age was 64 years, 61% were men, mean diabetes duration was 7.5 years, and mean baseline HbA1c was 7.3%. Electronic diary data capture was 98% in both groups. Weekly angina frequency was significantly lower with ranolazine versus placebo (3.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.6 to 4.1] episodes vs. 4.3 [95% CI: 4.0 to 4.5] episodes, p = 0.008), as was the weekly sublingual nitroglycerin use (1.7 [95% CI: 1.6 to 1.9] doses vs. 2.1 [95% CI: 1.9 to 2.3] doses, p = 0.003). There was no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events between groups.ConclusionsAmong patients with diabetes and chronic angina despite treatment with up to 2 agents, ranolazine reduced angina and sublingual nitroglycerin use and was well tolerated. (Type 2 Diabetes Evaluation of Ranolazine in Subjects With Chronic Stable Angina [TERISA]; NCT01425359)

ObjectivesWe sought to define acute mortality in hospitalized patients undergoing clinically indicated echocardiography with and without use of an ultrasound contrast agent.BackgroundThe U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently issued a boxed warning and new contraindications for the perflutren-containing ultrasound contrast agents following post-marketing reports of 4 patient deaths that were temporally related to Definity (Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging, Billerica, Massachusetts) administration. To appreciate the incremental risk of any medical procedure, the ambient risk of untoward outcome in the population in question must first be defined. There are no published data on short-term major adverse cardiac events in hospitalized patients undergoing echocardiography, either with or without administration of an ultrasound contrast agent.MethodsA retrospective analysis of hospitalized patients undergoing clinically indicated echocardiography between January 2005 and October 2007, within Saint Luke's Health System, Kansas City, Missouri, was performed. Studies were separated into 2 groups, those performed without contrast enhancement (n = 12,475) and those performed with Definity (n = 6,196). Vital status within 24 h of the echocardiographic study was available for all patients using a combination of the Social Security Death Master File and Saint Luke's Health System medical records. Incidence of death within 24 h was compared by chi-square test between Definity and unenhanced procedures.ResultsOf the 18,671 patient events, 72 patients died within 24 h. Of those that underwent unenhanced echocardiography, 46 died within 24 h (0.37%). Of patients receiving Definity during the echocardiogram, 26 died within 24 h (0.42%). There was no statistical difference between these 2 groups (p = 0.60). No patient died within 1 h of the echocardiographic study. In a random sampling from the unenhanced (n = 201) and Definity groups (n = 202), patients who underwent Definity-enhanced echocardiography exhibited higher clinical acuity, and more significant comorbidities.ConclusionsApproximately 0.4% of hospitalized patients die within 24 h of echocardiography. There is no increased mortality risk associated with Definity-enhanced examinations, despite evidence for higher clinical acuity and more comorbid conditions in patients undergoing contrast studies.