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 <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (P interaction  = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (P interaction  = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (P interaction  = 0.29)., Conclusions: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This project was supported in part by National Institutes of Health grants U01HL105907, U01HL105462, U01HL105561, and U01HL105565; and in part by Clinical Translational Science Award numbers 11UL1 TR001445 and UL1 TR002243 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The contents of this project are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; or the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Nguyen is currently supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute under Award Number T32HL110837. Dr Spertus has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study; has received personal fees from Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Janssen, and United Healthcare; has received grants from the American College of Cardiology, outside the submitted work; has a patent copyright to SAQ with royalties paid; is on the Board of Directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; and has equity in Health Outcomes Sciences. Dr Newman, Dr Alexander, Mrs Stevens, Dr O'Brien, Dr Gamma, Dr Perna, Dr Garg, Dr Vertes, Dr Smanio, Dr Senior, Dr Held, and Dr Maron have received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study. Mr Jones reports employment by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Chow holds the Saul and Edna Goldfarb Chair in Cardiac Imaging Research; receives research support from TD Bank, CV Diagnostix, AusculSciences, and Siemens Healthineers; and has equity interest in General Electric. Dr White has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study; has received grant support paid to the institution and fees for serving on a steering committee for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial from Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, for the ACCELERATE study from Eli Lilly, for the STRENGTH trial from Omthera Pharmaceuticals, for the HEART-FID study from American Regent, for the CAMELLIA-TIMI study from Eisai Inc, for the dal-GenE study from DalCor Pharma UK Inc, for the AEGIS-II study from CSL Behring, for the SCORED trial and the SOLOIST-WHF trial from Sanofi Australia Pty Ltd, and for the CLEAR Outcomes Study from Esperion Therapeutics Inc. Dr White was on the Advisory Board for Genentech, Inc; and has received lecture fees from AstraZeneca. Dr Boden has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study; has received grants from AbbVie, Amarin, and Amgen; and has received personal fees from Amgen, the Cleveland Clinic Clinical Coordinating Center, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr Mark has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study; and has received grants from HeartFlow and Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr Reynolds has received funding for this research from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and has received in-kind donations for unrelated research from Abbott Vascular, Siemens, and Philips. Dr Bangalore has received grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Vascular; and serves on the advisory board for Abbott Vascular, Pfizer, Amgen, Biotronik, Meril, and Reata. Dr Chan has received funding from the American Heart Association; and is a consultant for Optum Rx. Dr Stone has received grants and personal fees from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study; has received personal fees from Terumo, Amaranth, Shockwave, TherOx, Reva, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Matrizyme, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Claret, Sirtex, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, and Vectorious; has received personal fees and has equity/options from VALFIX, Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, SpectraWave, and Orchestra Biomed; has equity/options from Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, BioStar family of funds, MedFocus family of funds, and Aria; and has equity/options from Cardiac Success, outside the submitted work. Dr Hochman is Principal Investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial for which, in addition to support by a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant, devices and medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, Inc, Abbott Laboratories (formerly St Jude Medical, Inc), Royal Philips NV (formerly Volcano Corporation), Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Omron Healthcare, Inc, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Espero BioPharma, and Amgen, Inc, as well as financial donations from Arbor Pharmaceuticals LLC and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry is the largest outpatient cardiovascular practice registry in the world. It tracks real-world management and quality of 4 common cardiovascular conditions: heart failure, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. In 2013, the PINNACLE Registry contained information on 2,898,505 patients, cared for by 4,859 providers in 431 practices. By 2017, the registry contained information on 6,040,996 patients, cared for by 8,853 providers in 724 practices. During this time period, care processes for PINNACLE patients generally improved. Among patients with heart failure, combined beta-blocker and renin-angiotensin antagonist medication rates increased from 60.7% to 72.8%. Among patients with coronary artery disease, statin medication rates increased from 66% to 80.1%. Among patients with atrial fibrillation, oral anticoagulation rates increased from 52.7% to 65.2%. In contrast, blood pressure control rates among patients with hypertension were largely stable. PINNACLE data also fueled a variety of quality measurement programs and 51 peer-reviewed publications., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior studies with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) have shown a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with >10% to 12.5% ischemic myocardium. The relationship among positron emission tomography (PET)-derived extent of ischemia, early revascularization, and survival is unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association among percent ischemia on PET MPI, revascularization, and survival., Methods: A total of 16,029 unique consecutive patients who were undergoing Rubidium-82 rest-stress PET MPI from 2010 to 2016 were included. Patients with known cardiomyopathy and nondiagnostic perfusion results were excluded. Percent ischemic myocardium was estimated from a 17-segment model. Propensity scoring was used to account for nonrandomized referral to early revascularization (90 days of PET). A Cox model was developed, adjusting for propensity scores for early revascularization and percent ischemia, and an interaction between ischemia and early revascularization was tested., Results: Median follow-up was 3.7 years. Overall, 1,277 (8%) patients underwent early revascularization and 2,493 (15.6%) died (738 cardiac). Nearly 37% of patients (n = 5,902) had ischemia, with 13.5% (n = 2,160) having ≥10%. In propensity-adjusted analyses, there was a significant interaction between ischemia and early revascularization (p < 0.001 for all-cause and cardiac death), such that patients with greater ischemia had improved survival with early revascularization, with a potential ischemia threshold at 5% (upper limit 95% confidence interval at 10%). There was no differential association between ischemia and early revascularization on death based on history of known coronary artery disease (interaction p = 0.72)., Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing PET MPI, patients with greater ischemia had a survival benefit from early revascularization. On exploratory analyses, this threshold was lower than that previously reported for SPECT. These findings require future validation in prospective cohorts or trials., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) with warfarin is underused for atrial fibrillation (AF). The availability of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may improve overall OAC rates in AF patients, but a large-scale evaluation of their effects has not been conducted., Objectives: This study assessed the effect of DOAC availability on overall OAC rates for nonvalvular AF., Methods: Between April 1, 2008 and September 30, 2014, we identified 655,000 patients with nonvalvular AF and a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of >1 in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE registry. Temporal trends in overall OAC and individual warfarin and DOAC use were analyzed. Multivariable hierarchical logistic regression identified patient factors associated with OAC and DOAC use. Practice variation of OAC and DOAC use was also assessed., Results: Overall OAC rates increased from 52.4% to 60.7% among eligible AF patients (p for trend <0.01). Warfarin use decreased from 52.4% to 34.8% (p for trend <0.01), and DOAC use increased from 0% to 25.8% (p for trend <0.01). An increasing CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was associated with higher OAC use (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 1.07), but with lower DOAC use (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.98). Significant practice variation was present in OAC use (median odds ratio [MOR]: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.45 to 1.57) and in DOAC use (MOR: 3.58; 95% CI: 3.05 to 4.13)., Conclusions: Introduction of DOACs in routine practice was associated with improved rates of overall OAC use for AF, but significant gaps remain. In addition, there is significant practice-level variation in OAC and DOAC use., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: The current number of physicians will not be sufficient to accommodate 30 to 40 million Americans expected to secure health coverage with Affordable Care Act implementation. One proposed solution is to use advanced practice providers (APPs) (nurse practitioners and physician assistants)., Objectives: This study sought to determine whether there were clinically meaningful differences in the quality of care delivered by APPs versus physicians in a national sample of cardiology practices., Methods: Within the American College of Cardiology's PINNACLE Registry, we compared quality of coronary artery disease (CAD), heart failure, and atrial fibrillation care delivered by physicians and APPs for outpatient visits between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2012. We performed hierarchical regression adjusting for provider sex; panel size; duration of participation in registry; and patient's age, sex, insurance, number of outpatient visits, history of hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the preceding 12 months., Results: We included 883 providers (716 physicians and 167 APPs) in 41 practices who cared for 459,669 patients. Mean number of patients seen by APPs (260.7) was lower compared with that seen by physicians (581.2). Compliance with most CAD, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation measures was comparable, except for a higher rate of smoking cessation screening and intervention (adjusted rate ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.26) and cardiac rehabilitation referral (rate ratio: 1.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.16 to 1.70) among CAD patients receiving care from APPs. Compliance with all eligible CAD measures was low for both (12.1% and 12.2% for APPs and physicians, respectively) with no significant difference. Results were consistent when comparing practices with both physicians and APPs (n = 41) and physician-only practices (n = 49)., Conclusions: Apart from minor differences, a collaborative care delivery model, using both physicians and APPs, may deliver an overall comparable quality of outpatient cardiovascular care compared with a physician-only model., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study assessed practice variations in secondary prevention medication prescriptions among coronary artery disease (CAD) patients treated in outpatient practices participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry., Background: Among patients with CAD, secondary prevention with a combination of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and statins reduces cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction (MI). Accordingly, every CAD patient should receive the combination of these medications for which they are eligible. However, little is known about current prescription patterns of these medications and the variation in use among outpatient cardiology clinics., Methods: Using data from NCDR PINNACLE registry, a national outpatient cardiology practice registry, we assessed medication prescription patterns among eligible CAD patients, between July 2008 and December 2010. Overall rates of prescription and variation by practice were calculated, adjusting for patient characteristics., Results: Among 156,145 CAD patients in 58 practices, 103,830 (66.5%) patients were prescribed the optimal combination of medications for which they were eligible. The median rate of optimal combined prescription by practice was 73.5% and varied from 28.8% to 100%. After adjustment for patient factors, the practice median rate ratio for prescription was 1.25 (95% confidence interval: 1.20 to 1.32), indicating a 25% likelihood that 2 random practices would differ in treating identical CAD patients., Conclusions: Among a national registry of CAD patients treated in outpatient cardiology practices, over one-third of patients failed to receive their optimal combination of secondary prevention medications. Significant variation was observed across practices, even after adjusting for patient characteristics, suggesting that quality improvement efforts may be needed to support more uniform practice., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine whether rates of inappropriate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ by demographic characteristics and insurance status., Background: Prior studies have found that blacks, women, and those who have public or no health insurance are less likely to undergo PCI. Whether this reflects potential overuse in whites, men, and privately insured patients, in addition to underuse in disadvantaged populations, is unknown., Methods: Within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, we identified 221,254 nonacute PCIs performed between July 2009 and March 2011. The appropriateness of PCI was determined using the Appropriate Use Criteria for coronary revascularization. Multivariable hierarchical regression was used to evaluate the association between patient demographics and insurance status and inappropriate PCI, as defined by the Appropriate Use Criteria., Results: Of 211,254 nonacute PCIs, 25,749 (12.2%) were classified as inappropriate. After multivariable adjustment, men (adjusted odd ratio [OR]: 1.08 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.11]; p < 0.001) and whites (adjusted OR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.14]; p < 0.001) were more likely to undergo an inappropriate PCI in comparison with women and nonwhites. Compared with privately insured patients, those who had Medicare (adjusted OR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.83 to 0.88]), other public insurance (adjusted OR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.73 to 0.83]), and no insurance (adjusted OR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.50 to 0.61]) were less likely to undergo an inappropriate PCI (p < 0.001). In addition, compared with urban hospitals, those admitted at rural hospitals were less likely to undergo inappropriate PCI, whereas those at suburban hospitals were more likely., Conclusions: For nonacute indications, PCIs categorized as inappropriate were more commonly performed in men, whites, and those who had private insurance. Higher rates of PCI in these patient populations may, in part, be due to procedural overuse., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to examine the prescribing patterns of medications quantified by the performance measures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI)., Background: Current performance measures for AMI are designed to improve quality by quantifying the use of evidence-based treatments. However, these measures only assess medication prescription. Whether patients receive optimal dosing of secondary prevention medications at the time of and after discharge after AMI is unknown., Methods: We assessed treatment doses of beta-blockers, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) at discharge and 12 months after AMI among 6,748 patients from 31 hospitals enrolled in 2 U.S. registries (2003 to 2008). Prescribed doses were categorized as none, low (<50% target [defined from seminal clinical trials]), moderate (50% to 74% target), or goal (≥ 75% target). Patients with contraindications were excluded from analyses for that medication., Results: Most eligible patients (>87%) were prescribed some dose of each medication at discharge, although only 1 in 3 patients were prescribed these medications at goal doses. Of patients not discharged on goal doses, up-titration during follow-up occurred infrequently (approximately 25% of patients for each medication). At 12 months, goal doses of beta-blockers, statins, and ACEI/ARBs were achieved in only 12%, 26%, and 32% of eligible patients, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, prescription of goal dose at discharge was strongly associated with being at goal dose at follow-up: beta-blockers, adjusted odds ratio (OR): 6.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.70 to 10.01); statins, adjusted OR: 8.22 (95% CI: 6.20 to 10.90); ACEI/ARBs, adjusted OR: 5.80 (95% CI: 2.56 to 13.16); p < 0.001 for each., Conclusions: Although nearly all patients after an AMI are discharged on appropriate secondary prevention medications, dose increases occur infrequently, and most patients are prescribed doses below those with proven efficacy in clinical trials. Integration of dose intensity into performance measures might help improve the use of optimal medical therapy after AMI., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to develop a method for risk-standardizing hospital survival after cardiac arrest., Background: A foundation with which hospitals can improve quality is to be able to benchmark their risk-adjusted performance against other hospitals, something that cannot currently be done for survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest., Methods: Within the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Resuscitation registry, we identified 48,841 patients admitted between 2007 and 2010 with an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated a model for survival to hospital discharge and calculated risk-standardized survival rates (RSSRs) for 272 hospitals with at least 10 cardiac arrest cases., Results: The survival rate was 21.0% and 21.2% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic 0.74) and excellent calibration. Eighteen variables were associated with survival to discharge, and a parsimonious model contained 9 variables with minimal change in model discrimination. Before risk adjustment, the median hospital survival rate was 20% (interquartile range: 14% to 26%), with a wide range (0% to 85%). After adjustment, the distribution of RSSRs was substantially narrower: median of 21% (interquartile range: 19% to 23%; range 11% to 35%). More than half (143 [52.6%]) of hospitals had at least a 10% positive or negative absolute change in percentile rank after risk standardization, and 50 (23.2%) had a ≥20% absolute change in percentile rank., Conclusions: We have derived and validated a model to risk-standardize hospital rates of survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. Use of this model can support efforts to compare hospitals in resuscitation outcomes as a foundation for quality assessment and improvement., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this paper was to examine disparities in the use of cardioprotective medications in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) by socioeconomic status (SES)., Background: PAD is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and is more prevalent among those of lower SES. However, the use of guideline-recommended secondary preventive measures for the treatment of PAD across diverse income subgroups and the influence of practice site on potential treatment disparities by SES are unknown., Methods: Within the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry (NCDR) PINNACLE Registry, 62,690 patients with PAD were categorized into quintiles of SES, as defined by the median income of each patient's zip code. The association between SES and secondary preventive treatment with antiplatelet and statin medications was evaluated using sequential hierarchical modified Poison models, adjusting first for practice site and then for clinical variables., Results: Compared with the highest SES quintile (median income: >$60,868), PAD patients in the lowest SES quintile (median income: <$34,486) were treated less often with statins (72.5% vs. 85.8%; RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and antiplatelet therapy (79.0% vs. 84.6%; RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91 to 0.94; p < 0.001). These differences were markedly attenuated after controlling for practice site variation: statins (adjusted RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.003) and antiplatelet therapy (adjusted RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.00; p = 0.012). Additional adjustment for patients' clinical characteristics had minimal impact, with slight further attenuation with statins (adjusted RR: 1.00: 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; p = 0.772) and antiplatelet therapy (adjusted RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; p = 0.878)., Conclusions: Among PAD patients, the practice site at which patients received care largely explained the observed SES differences in treatment with guideline-recommended secondary preventive medications. Future efforts to reduce treatment disparities in these vulnerable populations should target systems improvement at practices serving high proportions of patients with low SES., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology Foundation, in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted a review of common clinical scenarios where diagnostic catheterization is frequently considered. The indications (clinical scenarios) were derived from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines and results of studies examining the implementation of noninvasive imaging appropriate use criteria. The 166 indications in this document were developed by a diverse writing group and scored by a separate independent technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9, to designate appropriate use (median 7 to 9), uncertain use (median 4 to 6), and inappropriate use (median 1 to 3). Diagnostic catheterization may include several different procedure components. The indications developed focused primarily on 2 aspects of diagnostic catheterization. Many indications focused on the performance of coronary angiography for the detection of coronary artery disease with other procedure components (e.g., hemodynamic measurements, ventriculography) at the discretion of the operator. The majority of the remaining indications focused on hemodynamic measurements to evaluate valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and other conditions, with the use of coronary angiography at the discretion of the operator. Seventy-five indications were rated as appropriate, 49 were rated as uncertain, and 42 were rated as inappropriate. The appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization have the potential to impact physician decision making, healthcare delivery, and reimbursement policy. Furthermore, recognition of uncertain clinical scenarios facilitates identification of areas that would benefit from future research.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to compare the consistency in appropriate use criteria (AUC) ratings among a broad range of practicing cardiologists and the AUC Technical Panel., Background: AUC for coronary revascularization have been developed by selected experts., Methods: Before AUC publication, 85 cardiologists from 10 U.S. institutions assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization for 68 indications that had been evaluated by the AUC Technical Panel. Each indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the physician group's median rating. Rates of concordance between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel (i.e., same appropriateness category assignment) and rates of nonagreement within the physician group (≥ 25% of panelists' ratings outside the group's appropriateness category assessment) were determined., Results: Overall concordance between the 2 groups was 84%. Among indications classified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, concordance between the 2 groups was excellent (94% [34 of 36]); however, nonagreement within the physician group was 44% (16 of 36). Among indications classified as uncertain, there was 73% (16 of 22) concordance between the 2 groups. Among inappropriate indications, concordance was moderate (70% [7 of 10]), but nonagreement occurred frequently (70% [7 of 10]). Moreover, there was substantial variation in appropriateness ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel (weighted kappa range: 0.05 to 0.76)., Conclusions: Although there was good concordance in assessments of appropriateness for coronary revascularization between physicians and the AUC Technical Panel, nonagreement within the physician group was common and there was marked variation in ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We 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., Background: Little 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., Methods: The 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., Results: There 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., Conclusions: For 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., (Copyright (c) 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess whether implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have different mortality benefits among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who screen negative and non-negative (positive and indeterminate) for microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA)., Background: Microvolt T-wave alternans has been proposed as an effective tool for risk stratification. However, no studies have examined whether ICD benefits differ by MTWA group., Methods: We developed a prospective cohort of 768 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%) and no prior sustained ventricular arrhythmia, of which 392 (51%) received ICDs. The mean follow-up time was 27 +/- 12 months. Propensity scores for ICD implantation based on the variables most likely to influence defibrillator implantation were developed for each MTWA cohort. Multivariable Cox analyses that controlled for propensity score, demographics, and clinical variables evaluated the degree to which ICDs decreased mortality risk for each MTWA group., Results: We identified 514 (67%) patients with a non-negative MTWA test result. After multivariable adjustment, ICDs were associated with lower all-cause mortality in MTWA-non-negative patients (hazard ratio [HR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27 to 0.76, p = 0.003) but not in MTWA-negative patients (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.20, p = 0.73) (for interaction, p = 0.04), with the mortality benefit in MTWA-non-negative patients largely mediated through arrhythmic mortality reduction (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.68, p = 0.004). The number needed to treat with an ICD for 2 years to save 1 life was 9 among MTWA-non-negative patients and 76 among MTWA-negative patients., Conclusions: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and no prior history of ventricular arrhythmia, mortality reduction with ICD implantation differs by MTWA status, with implications for risk stratification and health policy.

Objectives: This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) placement with and without risk stratification with microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) testing in the MADIT-II (Second Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial) eligible population., Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have been shown to prevent mortality in the MADIT-II population. Microvolt T-wave alternans testing has been shown to be effective in risk stratifying MADIT-II-eligible patients., Methods: On the basis of published data, cost-effectiveness of three therapeutic strategies in MADIT-II-eligible patients was assessed using a Markov model: 1) ICD placement in all; 2) ICD placement in patients testing MTWA non-negative;, and 3) medical management. Outcomes of expected cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness were determined for patient lifetime., Results: Under base-case assumptions, providing ICDs only to those who test MTWA non-negative produced a gain of 1.14 QALYs at an incremental cost of 55,700 dollars when compared to medical therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 48,700 dollars/QALY. When compared with a MTWA risk-stratification strategy, placing ICDs in all patients resulted in an ICER of 88,700 dollars/QALY. Most (83%) of the potential benefit was achieved by implanting ICDs in the 67% of patients who tested MTWA non-negative. Results were most sensitive to the effectiveness of MTWA as a risk-stratification tool, MTWA negative screen rate, cost and efficacy of ICD therapy, and patient risk for arrhythmic death., Conclusions: Risk stratification with MTWA testing in MADIT-II-eligible patients improves the cost-effectiveness of ICDs. Implanting defibrillators in all MADIT-II-eligible patients, however, is not cost-effective, with one-third of patients deriving little additional benefit at great expense.

Objectives: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of left atrial catheter ablation (LACA), amiodarone, and rate control therapy in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF)., Background: Left atrial catheter ablation has been performed to eliminate AF, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown., Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LACA in 55- and 65-year-old cohorts with AF at moderate and low stroke risk. Costs, health utilities, and transition probabilities were derived from published literature and Medicare data. We performed primary threshold analyses to determine the minimum level of LACA efficacy and stroke risk reduction needed to make LACA cost-effective at 50,000 dollars and 100,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) thresholds., Results: In 65-year-old subjects with AF at moderate stroke risk, relative reduction in stroke risk with an 80% LACA efficacy rate for sinus rhythm restoration would need to be > or =42% and > or =11% to yield incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) <50,000 dollars and 100,000 dollars per QALY, respectively. Higher and lower LACA efficacy rates would require correspondingly lower and higher stroke risk reduction for equivalent ICER thresholds. In the 55-year-old moderate stroke risk cohort, lower LACA efficacy rates or stroke risk reduction would be needed for the same ICER thresholds. In patients at low stroke risk, LACA was unlikely to be cost-effective., Conclusions: The use of LACA may be cost-effective in patients with AF at moderate risk for stroke, but it is not cost-effective in low-risk patients. Our threshold analyses may provide a framework for the design of future clinical trials by providing effect size estimates for LACA efficacy needed.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess if microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy., Background: Microvolt T-wave alternans has been proposed as an effective tool for identifying high-risk patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who are likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, earlier studies have been limited in their ability to control for baseline differences between MTWA-negative and -non-negative (positive and indeterminate) patients., Methods: We enrolled 768 consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%) and no prior history of ventricular arrhythmia. All patients underwent baseline MTWA testing and were classified as MTWA negative or non-negative. Multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by ICD status, were used to determine the association between MTWA testing and mortality after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment differences between MTWA-negative and -non-negative patients., Results: We identified 514 (67%) patients with a non-negative MTWA test. After multivariable adjustment, a non-negative MTWA test was associated with a significantly higher risk for all-cause (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 2.24 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 3.75]; p = 0.002) and arrhythmic mortality (stratified HR = 2.29 [1.00 to 5.24]; p = 0.049) but not for nonarrhythmic mortality (stratified HR = 1.77 [0.84 to 3.74]; p = 0.13). In subgroup analyses, a non-negative MTWA test was also associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with ejection fractions < or =30% (stratified HR = 2.10 [1.18 to 3.73]; p = 0.01) and after excluding those with indeterminate MTWA tests (stratified HR = 2.08 [1.18 to 3.66]; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: Microvolt T-wave alternans is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause and arrhythmic mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Objectives: To investigate the generalizability of the reduction in mortality posed by implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, we examined the effectiveness of defibrillators as applied in routine medical practice., Background: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators have been shown to be efficacious in the primary and secondary prevention of overall and cardiovascular mortality in clinical trials., Methods: Using the National Veterans Administration database, we identified a cohort of 6,996 patients from 1995 to 1999 with new-onset ventricular arrhythmia and pre-existing ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure, of which 1,442 received a defibrillator, and followed them for three years to determine rates of mortality. With multivariate logistic regression analyses that adjusted for demographics, illness severity, and comorbidity, we assessed overall, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular rates of mortality. To further address potential confounding, we also stratified the cohort by quintiles using a multivariable propensity score for each patient and determined mortality rates., Results: For the overall cohort, multivariate regression showed that those who received defibrillators had significantly lower all-cause (odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.60) and cardiovascular (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.65)] rates of mortality at three years. No significant differences were noted between groups in their rates of noncardiovascular mortality (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10). Propensity score analysis demonstrated similar mortality reduction benefits at three years: risk ratio (RR) 0.72 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.79) for all-cause; RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.78) for cardiovascular; and RR 0.95 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.08) for noncardiovascular rates of mortality. These results suggest that one death is prevented in this patient population for every four to five patients receiving a defibrillator for three years., Conclusions: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in routine medical practice significantly reduce cardiovascular and all-cause rates of mortality at levels similar to secondary prevention trials.