Search

Background Since 2003, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC-7) has been the predominant guideline for blood pressure management. A 2014 expert panel recommended increasing the blood pressure targets for patients age 60 years and older, as well as those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. Objectives The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the 2014 expert panel blood pressure management recommendations on patients managed in U.S. ambulatory cardiovascular practices. Methods Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE Registry, we assessed the proportion of patients who met the 2003 and 2014 panel recommendations, highlighting the populations of patients for whom the blood pressure goals changed. Results Of 1,185,253 patients in the study cohort, 706,859 (59.6%) achieved the 2003 JNC-7 goals. Using the 2014 recommendations, 880,378 (74.3%) patients were at goal. Among the 173,519 (14.6%) for whom goal achievement changed, 40,323 (23.2%) had a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 112,174 (64.6%) had coronary artery disease. In addition, the average Framingham risk score in this group was 8.5 ± 3.2%, and the 10-year ASCVD risk score was 28.0 ± 19.5%. Conclusions Among U.S. ambulatory cardiology patients with hypertension, nearly 1 in 7 who did not meet JNC-7 recommendations would now meet the 2014 treatment goals. If the new recommendations are implemented in clinical practice, blood pressure target achievement and cardiovascular events will need careful monitoring, because many patients for whom the target blood pressure is now more permissive are at high cardiovascular risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In a significant update, the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol guidelines recommend fixed-dose statin therapy for those at risk and do not recommend nonstatin therapies or treatment to target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, limiting the need for repeated LDL-C testing. Objectives The goal of this study was to examine the impact of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines on current U.S. cardiovascular practice. Methods Using the NCDR PINNACLE (National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) registry data from 2008 to 2012, we assessed current practice patterns as a function of the 2013 cholesterol guidelines. Lipid-lowering therapies and LDL-C testing patterns by patient risk group (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], diabetes, LDL-C ≥190 mg/dl, or an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%) were described. Results Among a cohort of 1,174,545 patients, 1,129,205 (96.1%) were statin-eligible (91.2% ASCVD, 6.6% diabetes, 0.3% off-treatment LDL-C ≥190 mg/dl, 1.9% estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%). There were 377,311 patients (32.4%) not receiving statin therapy and 259,143 (22.6%) receiving nonstatin therapies. During the study period, 20.8% of patients had 2 or more LDL-C assessments, and 7.0% had more than 4. Conclusions In U.S. cardiovascular practices, 32.4% of statin-eligible patients, as defined by the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol guidelines, were not currently receiving statins. In addition, 22.6% were receiving nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies and 20.8% had repeated LDL-C testing. Achieving concordance with the new cholesterol guidelines in patients treated in U.S. cardiovascular practices would result in significant increases in statin use, as well as significant reductions in nonstatin therapies and laboratory testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of the initial treatment for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is rapid and effective reperfusion. Randomized trials have demonstrated that primary angioplasty is preferred over thrombolysis if done in a timely manner and by an experienced team. However, due to many factors, performance of primary angioplasty within the goal of 90 min is often not possible. A combined strategy of immediate thrombolysis in the emergency room or in the ambulance followed by angioplasty theoretically could provide early reperfusion with subsequent angioplasty to insure complete reperfusion. Over 17 clinical trials have been reported. Compared with thrombolysis, facilitated angioplasty in the most recent trials has been shown to have a more favorable long-term outcome. Trials comparing facilitated angioplasty with full- or half-dose thrombolysis versus primary angioplasty have been far less favorable with the largest trial to date, the ASSENT (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Treatment Strategy with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)-4 trial, demonstrating a worse outcome in the primary end point of death, congestive heart failure, or shock at 90 days. Pending the results of the FINESSE (Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events) trial, current data suggest that facilitated angioplasty does not offer any advantage over primary angioplasty and may be harmful. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A substantial gap exists between medical evidence that is known and medical evidence that is put into practice. Although the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a long history of developing the content of evidence, the agency now pivots to close that gap by focusing on evidence dissemination and implementation. Achieving better health outcomes requires both the generation of new patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) knowledge and the appropriate and timely implementation of that knowledge into practice. The Affordable Care Act provided funds to support both types of PCOR efforts, with AHRQ building on years of experience to advance research dissemination and implementation. This article describes the work the AHRQ has done, is doing, and will do in the future. To communicate PCOR evidence findings, AHRQ is currently synthesizing research findings into convincing collections of evidence that can be best taken up by clinicians, patients and caregivers, and policymakers. The future direction for AHRQ is to improve the context for evidence and practice improvement, thereby creating an environment receptive to PCOR. Toward this goal, AHRQ is actively engaging partners, such as professional societies and insurers, to make evidence central to decision making. In addition, AHRQ recently launched two programs that seek to both understand and encourage the use of evidence in clinical practice. Throughout these efforts, AHRQ will continually assess needs and adapt initiatives to ensure that PCOR translates into improved patient-centered health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study examined the association between insurance status and physicians' adherence with providing evidence-based treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods: Within the PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) registry of the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry), the authors identified 60,814 outpatients with CAD from 30 U.S. practices. Hierarchical modified Poisson regression models with practice site as a random effect were used to study the association between health insurance (no insurance, public, or private health insurance) and 5 CAD quality measures.Results: Of 60,814 patients, 5716 patients (9.4%) were uninsured and 11,962 patients (19.7%) had public insurance, whereas 43,136 (70.9%) were privately insured. After accounting for exclusions, uninsured patients with CAD were 9%, 12%, and 6% less likely to receive treatment with a beta-blocker, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACE-I/ARB), and lipid-lowering therapy, respectively, than privately insured patients, and patients with public insurance were 9% less likely to be prescribed ACE-I/ARB therapy. Most differences by insurance status were attenuated after adjusting for the site providing care. For example, whereas uninsured patients with left ventricular dysfunction and CAD were less likely to receive ACE-I/ARB therapy (unadjusted RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.93), this difference was eliminated after adjustment for site (adjusted RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.03; p = 0.18).Conclusions: Within this national outpatient cardiac registry, uninsured patients were less likely to receive evidence-based medications for CAD. These disparities were explained by the site providing care. Efforts to reduce treatment differences by insurance status among cardiac outpatients may additionally need to focus on improving the rates of evidence-based treatment at sites with high proportions of uninsured patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]