Search

This document describes performance measures for heart failure that are appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs and is meant to serve as a focused update of the "2020 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures." The new performance measures are taken from the "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines" and are selected from the strongest recommendations (Class 1 or Class 3). In contrast, quality measures may not have as much evidence base and generally comprise metrics that might be useful for clinicians and health care organizations for quality improvement but are not yet appropriate for public reporting or pay-for-performance programs. New performance measures include optimal blood pressure control in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy in hospitalized patients. New quality measures include the use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction, the optimization of guideline-directed medical therapy prior to intervention for chronic secondary severe mitral regurgitation, continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure with improved ejection fraction, identifying both known risks for cardiovascular disease and social determinants of health, patient-centered counseling regarding contraception and pregnancy risks for individuals with cardiomyopathy, and the need for a monoclonal protein screen to exclude light chain amyloidosis when interpreting a bone scintigraphy scan assessing for transthyretin cardiac amyloidosis., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021., Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021., Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses., (Copyright © 2022 American Heart Association, Inc., the American College of Cardiology Foundation, and the Heart Failure Society of America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of new-onset heart failure (HF). Although guidelines recommend ischemic evaluation in this population, testing has historically been underutilized., Objectives: This study aimed to identify contemporary trends in CAD testing for patients with new-onset HF, particularly after publication of the STICHES (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study), and to characterize geographic and clinician-level variability in testing patterns., Methods: We determined the proportion of patients with incident HF who received CAD testing from 2004 to 2019 using an administrative claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare. We identified demographic and clinical predictors of CAD testing during the 90 days before and after initial diagnosis. Patients were grouped by their county of residence to assess national variation. Patients were then linked to their primary care physician and/or cardiologist to evaluate variation across clinicians., Results: Among 558,322 patients with new-onset HF, 34.8% underwent CAD testing and 9.3% underwent revascularization. After multivariable adjustment, patients who underwent CAD testing were more likely to be younger, male, diagnosed in an acute care setting, and have systolic dysfunction or recent cardiogenic shock. Incidence of CAD testing remained flat without significant change post-STICHES. Covariate-adjusted testing rates varied from 20% to 45% across counties. The likelihood of testing was higher among patients co-managed by a cardiologist (adjusted OR: 5.12; 95% CI: 4.98-5.27) but varied substantially across cardiologists (IQR: 50.9%-62.4%)., Conclusions: Most patients with new-onset HF across inpatient and outpatient settings did not receive timely testing for CAD. Substantial variability in testing persists across regions and clinicians., Competing Interests: Funding Support And Author Disclosures Dr Sandhu is supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1K23HL151672-01). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function., Objectives: This study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction., Methods: Guideline-directed medical therapies were evaluated among patients hospitalized with HF at 418 sites in the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry from 2014 to 2019 by discharge CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration)-derived estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We additionally evaluated the risk-adjusted association of admission eGFR with in-hospital mortality., Results: Among 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m 2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , and 18,869 (5%) were on dialysis. eGFR distribution remained stable from 2014 to 2019. Among 157,439 patients with HF with reduced EF (≤40%), discharge guideline-directed medical therapies, including beta-blockers, were lowest in discharge eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 or dialysis (p < 0.001). "Triple therapy" with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor + beta-blocker + mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was used in 38%, 33%, 25%, 15%, 5%, and 3% for eGFR ≥90, 60 to 89, 45 to 59, 30 to 44, <30 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , and dialysis, respectively; p < 0.001. Mortality was higher in a graded fashion at lower admission eGFR groups (1.1%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 3.0%, 5.0%, and 4.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). Steep covariate-adjusted associations between admission eGFR and mortality were observed across EF subgroups, but was slightly stronger for HF with reduced EF compared with HF with mid-range or preserved EF (p interaction  = 0.045)., Conclusions: Despite facing elevated risks of mortality, patients with comorbid HF with reduced EF and kidney disease are not optimally treated with evidence-based medical therapies, even at levels of eGFR where such therapies would not be contraindicated by kidney dysfunction. Further efforts are required to mitigate risk in comorbid HF and kidney disease., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure) program is provided by the American Heart Association and sponsored, in part, by Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Diabetes Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, and Bayer. This analysis, as a part of the TRANSLATE-HF research series, was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr Patel has received support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (grant KL2TR001424). Dr Fonarow has received research funding from the NIH; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Greene has received research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, and Cytokinetics; and has served as a consultant for Amgen and Merck. Dr DeVore has received research funding through the Duke Clinical Research Institute from the American Heart Association, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Intra-Cellular Therapies, American Regent Inc., the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Novartis, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca; has received nonfinancial support from Amgen, Bayer, CareDx, InnaMed, LivaNova, Mardil Medical, Novartis, Procyrion, scPharmaceuticals, Story Health, and Zoll; and has received nonfinancial support from Abbott for educational activities outside the submitted work. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squib, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Roche, V-Wave Limited, and Vifor. Dr Joynt Maddox has received grants from NIH/NHLBI, NIH/National Institute on Aging, and Commonwealth Fund; has previously done U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contract work outside the submitted work; and has served on the Health Policy Advisory Committee for the Centene Corp. Dr Owens has served as a consultant for MyoKardia and Cytokinetics outside the submitted work. Dr Peterson has received grant funding from the NHLBI (grant R33HL143324-02); and has received personal fees from the American Heart Association outside the submitted work. Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, NIH/NHLBI, NeuroTronik, Novartis, Respicardia, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has served as a consultant for Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Cardurion, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Daiichi-Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck, MyoKardia, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AOBiome, Janssen, Cardiac Dimensions, Tenaya, Sanofi Pasteur, DiNAQOR, Tremeau, CellProthera, and Moderna. Dr Vardeny has received funding from the NIH and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and has received personal fees from the American Heart Association. Dr Yancy’s spouse is employed by Abbott Labs Inc. Dr Vaduganathan has received research grant support or served on advisory boards for American Regent, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Baxter Healthcare, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Relypsa, and Roche Diagnostics; has had speaker engagements with Novartis and Roche Diagnostics; and has participated on clinical endpoint committees for studies sponsored by Galmed and Novartis. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is now the most common form of HF, affecting over 3 million adults in the United States alone. HFpEF is a heterogenous syndrome. One important phenotype may be related to comorbid conditions, including diabetes mellitus (DM). DM has a prevalence of approximately 45% in HFpEF, but characteristics and outcomes of this population are poorly understood. In this review, the authors summarize data from several clinical trials of HFpEF therapeutics and provide original data from a large cohort using the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry, which together suggest that DM is associated with increased morbidity and long-term mortality in HFpEF. The authors then discuss several common pathological mechanisms in HFpEF and DM, including sodium retention, metabolic derangements, impaired skeletal muscle function, and potential therapeutic targets. As the understanding of comorbid HFpEF and DM improves, it is hoped clinicians will be better equipped to offer effective, patient-centered treatments., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Surveys of patients with cardiovascular disease have suggested that "home-time"-being alive and out of any health care institution-is a prioritized outcome. This novel measure has not been studied among patients with heart failure (HF)., Objectives: This study sought to characterize home-time following hospitalization for HF and assess its relationship with patient characteristics and traditionally reported clinical outcomes., Methods: Using GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) registry data, patients discharged alive from an HF hospitalization between 2011 and 2014 and ≥65 years of age were identified. Using Medicare claims, post-discharge home-time over 30-day and 1-year follow-up was calculated for each patient as the number of days alive and spent outside of a hospital, skilled nursing facility (SNF), or rehabilitation facility., Results: Among 59,736 patients, 57,992 (97.1%) and 42,153 (70.6%) had complete follow-up for home-time calculation through 30 days and 1 year, respectively. The mean home-time was 21.6 ± 11.7 days at 30 days and 243.9 ± 137.6 days at 1 year. Contributions to reduced home-time varied by follow-up period, with days spent in SNF being the largest contributor though 30 days and death being the largest contributor through 1 year. Over 1 year, 2,044 (4.8%) patients had no home-time following index hospitalization discharge, whereas 8,194 (19.4%) had 365 days of home-time. In regression models, several conditions were associated with substantially reduced home-time, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal insufficiency, and dementia. Through 1 year, home-time was highly correlated with time-to-event endpoints of death (tau = 0.72) and the composite of death or HF readmission (tau = 0.59)., Conclusions: Home-time, which can be readily calculated from administrative claims data, is substantially reduced for many patients following hospitalization for HF and is highly correlated with traditional time-to-event mortality and hospitalization outcomes. Home-time represents a novel, easily measured, patient-centered endpoint that may reflect effectiveness of interventions in future HF studies., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) have a poor prognosis and are categorized by ejection fraction (EF)., Objectives: This study sought to characterize differences in outcomes in patients hospitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%), heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF) (EF 41% to 49%), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF ≤40%)., Methods: Data from GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) were linked to Medicare data for longitudinal follow-up. Multivariable models were constructed to examine 5-year outcomes and to compare survival to median survival of the U.S., Results: A total of 39,982 patients from 254 hospitals who were admitted for HF between 2005 and 2009 were included: 18,299 (46%) had HFpEF, 3,285 (8.2%) had HFbEF, and 18,398 (46%) had HFrEF. Overall, median survival was 2.1 years. In risk-adjusted survival analysis, all 3 groups had similar 5-year mortality (HFrEF 75.3% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% confidence interval: 0.958 to 1.022]; HFbEF 75.7% vs. HFpEF 75.7%; hazard ratio: 0.99 [95% confidence interval: 0.947 to 1.046]). In risk-adjusted analyses, the composite of mortality and rehospitalization was similar for all subgroups. Cardiovascular and HF readmission rates were higher in those with HFrEF and HFbEF compared with those with HFpEF. When compared with the U.S. population, HF patients across all age and EF groups had markedly lower median survival., Conclusions: Among patients hospitalized with HF, patients across the EF spectrum have a similarly poor 5-year survival with an elevated risk for cardiovascular and HF admission. These findings underscore the need to improve treatment of patients with HF., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) occurs in many clinical contexts and is diagnosed and treated by clinicians across many specialties. This approach has resulted in treatment variations., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the association between treating specialty and AF outcomes among patients newly diagnosed with AF., Methods: Using data from the TREAT-AF (Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) study from the Veterans Health Administration, patients with newly diagnosed, nonvalvular AF between 2004 and 2012 were identified who had at least 1 outpatient encounter with primary care or cardiology within 90 days of the AF diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between treating specialty and AF outcomes., Results: Among 184,161 patients with newly diagnosed AF (age 70 ± 11 years; 1.7% women; CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 2.6 ± 1.7), 40% received cardiology care and 60% received primary care only. After adjustment for covariates, cardiology care was associated with reductions in stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86 to 0.96; p < 0.001) and death (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.91; p < 0.0001) and increases in hospitalizations for AF/supraventricular tachycardia (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.35 to 1.42; p < 0.0001) and myocardial infarction (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.05; p < 0.04). The propensity-matched cohort had similar results. In mediation analysis, oral anticoagulation prescription within 90 days of diagnosis may have mediated reductions in stroke but did not mediate reductions in survival., Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed AF, cardiology care was associated with improved outcomes, potentially mediated by early prescription of oral anticoagulation therapy. Although hypothesis-generating, these data warrant serious consideration and study of health care system interventions at the time of new AF diagnosis., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) may be key tools for improving the quality of health care, particularly for conditions for which guidelines are rapidly evolving and timely care is critical, such as ischemic stroke., Objectives: The goal of this study was to determine whether hospitals with EHRs differed on quality or outcome measures for ischemic stroke from those without EHRs., Methods: We studied 626,473 patients from 1,236 U.S. hospitals in Get With the Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) from 2007 through 2010, linked with the American Hospital Association annual survey to determine the presence of EHRs. We conducted patient-level logistic regression analyses for each of the outcomes of interest., Results: A total of 511 hospitals had EHRs by the end of the study period. Hospitals with EHRs were larger and were more often teaching hospitals and stroke centers. After controlling for patient and hospital characteristics, patients admitted to hospitals with EHRs had similar odds of receiving "all-or-none" care (odds ratio [OR]: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.06; p=0.12), of discharge home (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.04; p=0.15), and of in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.05; p=0.82). The odds of having a length of stay>4 days was slightly lower at hospitals with EHRs (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99; p=0.01)., Conclusions: In our sample of GWTG-Stroke hospitals, EHRs were not associated with higher-quality care or better clinical outcomes for stroke care. Although EHRs may be necessary for an increasingly high-tech, transparent healthcare system, as currently implemented, they do not appear to be sufficient to improve outcomes for this important disease., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite endorsement of digoxin in clinical practice guidelines, there exist limited data on its safety in atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF)., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the association of digoxin with mortality in AF., Methods: Using complete data of the TREAT-AF (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) study from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system, we identified patients with newly diagnosed, nonvalvular AF seen within 90 days in an outpatient setting between VA fiscal years 2004 and 2008. We used multivariate and propensity-matched Cox proportional hazards to evaluate the association of digoxin use with death. Residual confounding was assessed by sensitivity analysis., Results: Of 122,465 patients with 353,168 person-years of follow-up (age 72.1 ± 10.3 years, 98.4% male), 28,679 (23.4%) patients received digoxin. Cumulative mortality rates were higher for digoxin-treated patients than for untreated patients (95 vs. 67 per 1,000 person-years; p < 0.001). Digoxin use was independently associated with mortality after multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23 to 1.29, p < 0.001) and propensity matching (HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.25, p < 0.001), even after adjustment for drug adherence. The risk of death was not modified by age, sex, heart failure, kidney function, or concomitant use of beta-blockers, amiodarone, or warfarin., Conclusions: Digoxin was associated with increased risk of death in patients with newly diagnosed AF, independent of drug adherence, kidney function, cardiovascular comorbidities, and concomitant therapies. These findings challenge current cardiovascular society recommendations on use of digoxin in AF., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine if the risk of mortality associated with inappropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) shocks is due to the underlying arrhythmia or the shock itself., Background: Shocks delivered from ICDs are associated with an increased risk of mortality. It is unknown if all patients who experience inappropriate ICD shocks have an increased risk of death., Methods: We evaluated survival outcomes in patients with an ICD and a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator enrolled in the LATITUDE remote monitoring system (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) through January 1, 2010. First shock episode rhythms from 3,809 patients who acutely survived the initial shock were adjudicated by 7 electrophysiologists. Patients with a shock were matched to patients without a shock (n = 3,630) by age at implant, implant year, sex, and device type., Results: The mean age of the study group was 64 ± 13 years, and 78% were male. Compared with no shock, there was an increased rate of mortality in those who received their first shock for monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.65, p < 0.0001), ventricular fibrillation/polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (HR: 2.10, p < 0.0001), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (HR: 1.61, p = 0.003). In contrast, mortality after first shocks due to sinus tachycardia and supraventricular tachycardia (HR: 0.97, p = 0.86) and noise/artifact/oversensing (HR: 0.91, p = 0.76) was comparable to that in patients without a shock., Conclusions: Compared with no shock, those who received their first shock for ventricular rhythms and atrial fibrillation had an increased risk of death. There was no significant difference in survival after inappropriate shocks for sinus tachycardia or noise/artifact/oversensing. In this study, the adverse prognosis after first shock appears to be more related to the underlying arrhythmia than to an adverse effect from the shock itself., (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: This study sought to quantify the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), beta-blocker (BB), and aldosterone antagonist (AldA) therapies for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Background: There are evidence-based, guideline-directed medical therapies for patients with HFrEF, but the incremental cost-effectiveness of these therapies has not been well studied using contemporary data., Methods: A Markov model with lifetime horizon and two states, dead or alive, was created. We compared HFrEF patients treated with diuretic agents alone to three treatment arms: 1) ACEI therapy alone; 2) ACEI+BB; and 3) ACEI+BB+AldA. Sequential therapy was also analyzed. HF hospitalizations and mortality rates were based on representative studies. Costs of medications and inpatient and outpatient care were accounted for., Results: Treatment with ACEI and ACEI+BB strictly dominated treatment with diuretics only (cost-saving). The greatest gains in quality-adjusted life-years occurred when all 3 guideline-directed medications were provided. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ACEI+BB+AldA versus ACEI+BB and ACEI+BB versus ACEI was <$1,500 per quality-adjusted life-year. The cost-savings in the ACEI and ACEI+BB cohorts compared to that with diuretics alone were $444 and $33, respectively. Assuming lower treatment costs and lower hospitalization rates in the ACEI+BB+AldA arm resulted in greater cost-savings. Even in the most unfavorable situations, the ICER was <$10,000 per life-year gained., Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrates that medical treatment of HFrEF is highly cost-effective and may even result in cost-savings. Greater efforts to ensure optimal adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF are warranted., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between payment source and quality of care and outcomes in heart failure (HF)., Background: HF is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of studies assessing the association of payment source with HF quality of care and outcomes., Methods: A total of 99,508 HF admissions from 244 sites between January 2005 and September 2009 were analyzed. Patients were grouped on the basis of payer status (private/health maintenance organization, no insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid) with private/health maintenance organization as the reference group., Results: The no-insurance group was less likely to receive evidence-based beta-blockers (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.86), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.70), or anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.87). Similarly, the Medicaid group was less likely to receive evidence-based beta-blockers (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.95) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.96). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers were prescribed less frequently in the Medicare group (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.98). The Medicare, Medicaid, and no-insurance groups had longer hospital stays. Higher adjusted rates of in-hospital mortality were seen in patients with Medicaid (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.41) and in patients with reduced systolic function with no insurance., Conclusions: Decreased quality of care and outcomes for patients with HF were observed in the no-insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare groups compared with the private/health maintenance organization group., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study examined the degree to which hospital performance for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) care processes are correlated., Background: Although AMI and HF care processes may be amenable to similar quality improvement interventions, whether these are indeed correlated and whether hospitals with consistently superior performance for both care metrics have the best outcomes remains unknown., Methods: We compared hospital performance of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services AMI and HF core measures in 283 hospitals submitting 10 or more patients to the Get With The Guidelines AMI and HF programs between January 2005 and April 2009., Results: Median hospital adherence to AMI and HF composite measures were 93% (interquartile range: 87% to 97%) and 92% (interquartile range: 85% to 96%), respectively, with only a modest correlation between hospital performance on these 2 composite metrics (r = 0.50; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.58). Hospitals with superior performance to both AMI and HF processes had significantly longer duration of Get With The Guidelines participation and lower adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 0.79; 95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 0.99) for AMI and HF patients, whereas hospitals with superior adherence to either alone had similar mortality rates as hospitals with superior adherence to neither measure., Conclusions: Hospitals that had consistent, superior performance for both AMI and HF care had significantly lower risk-adjusted mortality than those with superior performance either alone or for neither measure. Whether a single scoring system to assess global, rather than condition-specific, quality of cardiovascular care would facilitate care quality improvement more consistently and would optimize patient outcomes merits further investigation., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We sought to examine the relationship between hospital implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation volume and procedural complications in a contemporary, representative population., Background: Hospitals that perform higher volumes of procedures generally have better clinical outcomes., Methods: We examined initial ICD implantations between January 2006 and December 2008 at hospitals participating in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) ICD Registry and evaluated the relationship between hospital annual implant volume and in-hospital adverse outcomes., Results: The rate of adverse events declined progressively with increasing procedure volume (p trend < 0.0001). This relationship remained significant (p trend < 0.0001) after adjustment for patient clinical characteristics, operator characteristics, and hospital characteristics. The volume-outcome relationship was evident for all ICD subtypes, including single-chamber (p trend = 0.004), dual-chamber (p trend < 0.0001), and biventricular ICDs (p trend = 0.02)., Conclusions: Patients who have an ICD implanted at a high-volume hospital are less likely to have an adverse event associated with the procedure than patients who have an ICD implanted at a low-volume hospital., (Copyright © 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine recent trends over time in heart failure hospitalization, patient characteristics, treatment, rehospitalization, and mortality within the Veterans Affairs health care system., Background: Use of recommended therapies for heart failure has increased in the U.S. However, it is unclear to what extent hospitalization rates and the associated mortality have improved., Methods: We compared rates of hospitalization for heart failure, 30-day rehospitalization for heart failure, and 30-day mortality following discharge from 2002 to 2006 in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Odds ratios for outcome were adjusted for patient diagnoses within the past year, laboratory data, and for clustering of patients within hospitals., Results: We identified 50,125 patients with a first hospitalization for heart failure from 2002 to 2006. Mean age did not change (70 years), but increases were noted for most comorbidities (mean Charlson score increased from 1.72 to 1.89, p < 0.0001). Heart failure admission rates remained constant at about 5 per 1,000 veterans. Mortality at 30 days decreased (7.1% to 5.0%, p < 0.0001), whereas rehospitalization for heart failure at 30 days increased (5.6% to 6.1%, p = 0.11). After adjustment for patient characteristics, the odds ratio for rehospitalization in 2006 (vs. 2002) was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47 to 0.61) for mortality, but 1.21 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.41) for heart failure rehospitalization at 30 days., Conclusions: Recent mortality and rehospitalization rates in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System have trended in opposite directions. These results have implications for using rehospitalization as a measure of quality of care., (Copyright 2010 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The assessment of medical practice is evolving rapidly in the United States. An initial focus on structure and process performance measures assessing the quality of medical care is now being supplemented with efficiency measures to quantify the "value" of healthcare delivery. This statement, building on prior work that articulated standards for publicly reported outcomes measures, identifies preferred attributes for measures used to assess efficiency in the allocation of healthcare resources. The attributes identified in this document combined with the previously published standards are intended to serve as criteria for assessing the suitability of efficiency measures for public reporting. This statement identifies the following attributes to be considered for publicly reported efficiency measures: integration of the quality and cost; valid cost measurement and analysis; minimal incentive to provide poor quality care; and proper attribution of the measure. The attributes described in this statement are relevant to a wide range of efforts to profile the efficiency of various healthcare providers, including hospitals, healthcare systems, managed-care organizations, physicians, group practices, and others that deliver coordinated care.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the significance of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in the context of low low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)., Background: Earlier studies support an inverse correlation between circulating HDL-C and coronary risk in patients with normal or elevated LDL-C., Methods: This study involved 4,188 patients attending the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Medical Center or affiliated clinics with LDL-C levels below 60 mg/dl. Outcomes were examined 1 year after the index LDL-C date. The combined primary end point was myocardial injury or hospitalization from ischemic heart disease. The secondary end point was all-cause mortality., Results: Mean HDL-C levels (mg/dl) by quartile (Q) were: Q1 28 mg/dl, Q2 36 mg/dl, Q3 43 mg/dl, and Q4 63 mg/dl. The rate of myocardial injury or hospitalization for ischemic heart disease showed an inverse relationship to HDL-C (adjusted odds ratios: Q1 1.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 2.19], Q2 1.39 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.92], Q3 1.33 [95% CI 0.96 to 1.84], and Q4 reference) that persisted regardless of statin use or recent myocardial injury. Analyzing HDL-C as a continuous variable revealed a 10% [95% CI 3% to 17%] increase in the combined end point of myocardial injury or hospitalization for ischemic heart disease for every 10-mg/dl decrease in HDL-C. The unadjusted and adjusted incidence of all-cause mortality demonstrated a U-shaped relationship to HDL-C (adjusted odds ratios: Q1 1.13 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.62], Q2 0.97 [95% CI 0.67 to 1.40], Q3 0.74 [95% CI 0.50 to 1.09], and Q4 reference)., Conclusions: The inverse relationship between HDL-C and coronary risk persists even among patients with LDL-C below 60 mg/dl, although a U-shaped relationship is observed between HDL-C and all-cause mortality.

Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that one health status measure, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), provides prognostic information independent of other clinical data in outpatients with heart failure (HF)., Background: Health status measures are used to describe a patient's clinical condition and have been shown to predict mortality in some populations. Their prognostic value may be particularly useful among patients with HF for identifying candidates for disease management in whom increased care may reduce hospitalizations and prevent death., Methods: We evaluated 505 HF patients from 13 outpatient clinics who had an ejection fraction <40% using the KCCQ summary score. Proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between the KCCQ summary score (range, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better health status) and the primary outcome of death or HF admission, adjusting for baseline patient characteristics, 6-min walk distance, and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)., Results: The mean age was 61 years, 76% of patients were male, 51% had an ischemic HF etiology, and 5% were New York Heart Association functional class IV. At 12 months, among the 9% of patients with a KCCQ score <25, 37% had been admitted for HF and 20% had died, compared with 7% (HF admissions) and 5% (death) of those with a KCCQ score > or =75 (33% of patients, p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). In sequential multivariable models adjusting for clinical variables, 6-min walk, and BNP levels, the KCCQ score remained significantly associated with survival free of HF hospitalization., Conclusions: A low KCCQ score is an independent predictor of poor prognosis in outpatients with HF.