Search

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with no definitive diagnostic tests. HF registries are often based on manual reviews of medical records of hospitalized HF patients identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. However, most HF patients are not hospitalized, and manual review of big electronic health record (EHR) data is not practical. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has the largest integrated healthcare system in the nation, and an estimated 1.5 million patients have ICD codes for HF (HF ICD-code universe) in their VA EHR. The objective of our study was to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models to phenotype HF in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The model development cohort (n = 20 000: training, 16 000; validation 2000; testing, 2000) included 10 000 patients with HF and 10 000 without HF who were matched by age, sex, race, inpatient/outpatient status, hospital, and encounter date (within 60 days). HF status was ascertained by manual chart reviews in VAs External Peer Review Program for HF (EPRP-HF) and non-HF status was ascertained by the absence of ICD codes for HF in VA EHR. Two clinicians annotated 1000 random snippets with HF-related keywords and labelled 436 as HF, which was then used to train and test a natural language processing (NLP) model to classify HF (positive predictive value or PPV, 0.81; sensitivity, 0.77). A machine learning (ML) model using linear support vector machine architecture was trained and tested to classify HF using EPRP-HF as cases (PPV, 0.86; sensitivity, 0.86). From the HF ICD-code universe, we randomly selected 200 patients (gold standard cohort) and two clinicians manually adjudicated HF (gold standard HF) in 145 of those patients by chart reviews. We calculated NLP, ML, and NLP + ML scores and used weighted F scores to derive their optimal threshold values for HF classification, which resulted in PPVs of 0.83, 0.77, and 0.85 and sensitivities of 0.86, 0.88, and 0.83, respectively. HF patients classified by the NLP + ML model were characteristically and prognostically similar to those with gold standard HF. All three models performed better than ICD code approaches: one principal hospital discharge diagnosis code for HF (PPV, 0.97; sensitivity, 0.21) or two primary outpatient encounter diagnosis codes for HF (PPV, 0.88; sensitivity, 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that NLP and ML models are efficient AI tools to phenotype HF in big EHR data to create contemporary HF registries for clinical studies of effectiveness, quality improvement, and hypothesis generation.

AIMS: Sex differences in long-term outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure (HF) across ejection fraction (EF) subtypes are not well described. In this study, we evaluated the risk of mortality and rehospitalization among males and females across the spectrum of EF over 5 years of follow-up following an index HF hospitalization event. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients hospitalized with HF between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2014 from the American Heart Associations Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry with available 5-year follow-up using Medicare Part A claims data were included. The association between sex and risk of mortality and readmission over a 5-year follow-up period for each HF subtype (HF with reduced EF [HFrEF, EF ≤40%], HF with mildly reduced EF [HFmrEF, EF 41-49%], and HF with preserved EF [HFpEF, EF >50%]) was assessed using adjusted Cox models. The effect modification by the HF subtype for the association between sex and outcomes was assessed by including multiplicative interaction terms in the models. A total of 155 670 patients (median age: 81 years, 53.4% female) were included. Over 5-year follow-up, males and females had comparably poor survival post-discharge; however, females (vs. males) had greater years of survival lost to HF compared with the median age- and sex-matched US population (HFpEF: 17.0 vs. 14.6 years; HFrEF: 17.3 vs. 15.1 years; HFmrEF: 17.7 vs. 14.6 years for age group 65-69 years). In adjusted analysis, females (vs. males) had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-0.90, p

BACKGROUND: The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) Registry uses achievement and quality measures to improve the care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate overall and site-level variation in attainment of these measures among sites participating in the GWTG-AFIB Registry. METHODS: From the GWTG-AFIB registry, we included patients with AF admitted between 1/3/2013 and 6/30/2019. We described patient-level attainment and variation in attainment across sites of 6 achievement measures with 1) defect-free scores (percent of patients with all eligible measures attained), and 2) composite opportunity scores (percent of all eligible patient measures attained). We also described attainment of 11 quality measures at the patient-level. RESULTS: Among 80,951 patients hospitalized for AF (age 70±13 years, 47.0% female; CHA2DS2-VASc 3.6±1.8) at 132 sites. Site-level defect-free scores ranged from 4.7% to 85.8% (25th, 50th, 75th percentile: 32.7%, 52.1%, 64.4%). Composite opportunity scores ranged from 39.4% to 97.5% (25th, 50th, 75th: 68.1%, 80.3%, 87.1%). Attainment was notably low for the following quality measures: 1) aldosterone antagonist prescription when ejection fraction ≤35% (29% of those eligible); and 2) avoidance of antiplatelet therapy with OAC in patients without coronary/peripheral artery disease (81% of those eligible). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high overall attainment of care measures across GWTG-AFIB registry sites, large site variation was present with meaningful opportunities to improve AF care beyond OAC prescription, including but not limited to prescription of aldosterone antagonists in those with AF and systolic dysfunction and avoidance of non-indicated adjunctive antiplatelet therapy.

Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P

BackgroundFew contemporary data exist evaluating care patterns and outcomes in heart failure (HF) across the spectrum of kidney function.ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize differences in quality of care and outcomes in patients hospitalized for HF by degree of kidney dysfunction.MethodsGuideline-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.ResultsAmong 365,494 hospitalizations (age 72 ± 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction [EF]: 43 ± 17%), median discharge eGFR was 51 ml/min/1.73 m2 (interquartile range: 34 to 72 ml/min/1.73 m2), 234,332 (64%) had eGFR

ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses a new peer group-based payment system to compare hospital performance as part of its Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, which classifies hospitals into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible beneficiaries for Medicare and Medicaid. However, little is known about the association of a hospital's share of dual-eligible beneficiaries with the quality of care and outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF).ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between a hospital's proportion of patients with dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid and HF quality of care and outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated 436 196 patients hospitalized for HF using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017. The analysis included patients 65 years or older with available data on dual-eligibility status. Hospitals were divided into quintiles based on their share of dual-eligible patients. Quality and outcomes were analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Data analysis was performed from April 1, 2020, to January 1, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, 30-day HF readmissions, 30-day all-cause mortality, and HF process of care measures.ResultsA total of 436 196 hospitalized HF patients 65 years or older from 535 hospital sites were identified, with 258 995 hospitalized patients (median age, 81 years; interquartile range, 74-87 years) at 455 sites meeting the study criteria and included in the primary analysis. A total of 258 995 HF hospitalizations from 455 sites were included in the primary analysis of the study. Hospitals in the highest dual-eligibility quintile (quintile 5) tended to care for patients who were younger, were more likely to be female, belonged to racial minority groups, or were located in rural areas compared with quintile 1 sites. After multivariable adjustment, hospitals with the highest quintile of dual eligibility were associated with lower rates of key process measures, including evidence-based β-blocker prescription, measure of left ventricular function, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. Differences in clinical outcomes were seen with higher 30-day all-cause (adjusted odds ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.35) and HF (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.27) readmissions in higher dual-eligible quintile 5 sites compared with quintile 1 sites. Risk-adjusted in-hospital and 30-day mortality did not significantly differ in quintile 1 vs quintile 5 hospitals.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, hospitals with a higher share of dual-eligible patients provided care with lower rates of some of the key HF quality of care process measures and with higher 30-day all-cause or HF readmissions compared with lower dual-eligibility quintile hospitals.

BackgroundPostdischarge mortality following hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has remained high and unchanged over the past 2 decades, despite effective therapies for HFrEF. We aimed to explore whether these patterns could in part be explained by changes in longitudinal risk profile and HF severity over time.MethodsAmong patients hospitalized for HF in the GWTG-HF registry from January 2005 to December 2018 with available data, we evaluated GWTG-HF and ADHERE risk scores, observing in-hospital mortality per-year. The risk profiles and outcomes were described overall and by subgroups based on ejection fraction (EF), diabetes mellitus (DM), sex, and age.ResultsOverall, 335,735 patients were included (50% HFrEF, 46% DM, 48% female, mean age 74 years). In-hospital mortality increased by 2.0% per year from 2005 to 2018. There was no significant change in mean GWTG-HF risk score overall or when stratified by EF groups (P = 0.46 HFrEF, p = 0.26 HF mid-range EF [HFmrEF], and P = 0.72 HF preserved EF [HFpEF]), age, sex, or presence of DM. The observed/expected ratio based on the GWTG-HF risk score was 0.93 (0.91-0.96), 0.83 (0.77-0.90), 0.92 (0.89-95) for HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF, respectively. Similar findings were seen when risk was assessed using ADHERE risk score.ConclusionsThere were no significant changes in average risk profiles among hospitalized HF patients over the study duration. These data do not support the notion that worsening risk profile explains the lack of improved outcomes despite therapeutic advances, underscoring the importance of aggressive implementation of guideline-recommended therapies and investigation of novel treatments.

Background There are conflicting data regarding the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of ICD placement in patients with diabetes mellitus and HF with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and Results Data were obtained from the Get With the Guidelines-Health Failure registry, linked with claims from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We used a Cox proportional hazards model censored at 5 years with propensity score matching. Of the 17 186 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database (6540 with diabetes mellitus; 38%), 1677 (646 with diabetes mellitus; 39%) received an ICD during their index HF hospitalization or were prescribed an ICD at discharge. Patients with diabetes mellitus and an ICD (n=646), as compared with those without an ICD (n=1031), were more likely to be younger (74 versus 78 years of age) and have coronary artery disease (68% versus 60%). After propensity matching, ICD use among patients with diabetes mellitus, as compared with those without an ICD, was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality at 5 years after HF discharge (54% versus 59%; multivariable hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.82; P

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend evaluation for underlying heart disease and reversible conditions for patients with new-onset heart failure (HF). There are limited data on contemporary testing for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with new-onset HF. METHODS: We performed an observational cohort study using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked to Medicare claims. All patients were aged ≥65 and hospitalized for new-onset HF from 2009 to 2015. We collected left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), prior HF history, and in-hospital CAD testing from the registry, as well as testing for CAD using claims from 90 days before to 90 days after index HF hospitalization. RESULTS: Among 17 185 patients with new-onset HF, 6672 (39%) received testing for CAD, including 3997 (23%) during the index hospitalization. Testing for CAD differed by LVEF: 53% in HF with reduced EF (LVEF ≤40%), 42% in HF with borderline EF (LVEF, 41%-49%), and 31% in HF with preserved EF (LVEF ≥50%). After multivariable adjustment, patients who received testing for CAD, compared with those who did not, were younger and more likely to be male, have a smoking history, have hyperlipidemia, and have HF with reduced ejection fraction or HF with borderline ejection fraction (all P

BackgroundIn PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized From an Acute Heart Failure Episode), the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was well-tolerated and led to improved outcomes. We aim to determine the representativeness of the PIONEER-HF trial among patients hospitalized for ADHF using real-world data.MethodsThe study population was derived from all patients discharged alive for ADHF in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF). We then determined the proportion of patients meeting PIONEER-HF eligibility criteria (PIONEER-HF eligible) and those meeting a set of limited eligibility criteria (actionable cohort). Rates of HF readmissions and all-cause mortality were then compared between the all HFrEF with ADHF, PIONEER-HF eligible, and actionable cohorts using linked Medicare claims data.ResultsA total of 99 767 patients with HFrEF in Get With The Guidelines-HF were hospitalized for ADHF. PIONEER-HF inclusion criteria were met by 71 633 (71.8%) patients, and both inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 20 704 (20.8%) patients. Further, 68 739 (68.9%) patients met the criteria for the actionable cohort. Among the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid-linked patients, the HF rehospitalization rate at 1 year was 35.1% (95% CI, 34.5-35.8) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 32.6% (95% CI, 31.3-33.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 33.1% (95% CI, 32.3-33.9) for the actionable cohort. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 36.7% (95% CI, 36.1-7.4) for all HFrEF with ADHF patients, 31.6% (95% CI, 30.3-32.9) for the PIONEER-HF eligible cohort, and 32.2% (95% CI, 31.4-33.0) for the actionable cohort.ConclusionsPatient characteristics and clinical outcomes for patients eligible for PIONEER-HF only modestly differ when compared with those encountered in routine practice, suggesting that the in-hospital initiation of sacubitril/valsartan should be routinely considered for patients with HFrEF hospitalized for ADHF.

AimsSodium-glucose co-transporter (SGLT)-2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and high cardiovascular risk in two large clinical outcome trials: empagliflozin in EMPA-REG OUTCOME and canagliflozin in CANVAS. The scope of eligibility for SGLT-2 inhibitors (empagliflozin and canagliflozin) among patients with type 2 DM and HF, based on clinical trial criteria and current US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labelling criteria, remains unknown.Methods and resultsUsing data from the US Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Heart Failure registry, we evaluated the proportion of patients with DM and HF eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy based on the clinical trial criteria and the US FDA labelling criteria. The GWTG-HF registry is a quality improvement registry of patients admitted in hospital with HF in the USA. We included GWTG-HF registry participants meeting eligibility criteria hospitalized between August 2014 and 30 June 2017 from sites fully participating in the registry. The initial inclusion time point reflects when both drugs had FDA approval. Among the 139 317 patients (out of 407 317) with DM hospitalized with HF (in 460 hospitals; 2014 to 2017), the median age was 71 years, 47% (n = 65 685) were female, and 43% (n = 59 973) had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Overall, 43% (n = 59 943) were eligible for the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, 45% (n = 62 818) were eligible for the CANVAS trial, and 34% (n = 47 747) of patients were eligible for either SGLT-2 inhibitors based on the FDA labelling criteria. Among the FDA-eligible patients, 91.5% (n = 43 708) were eligible for either the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial or the CANVAS trial. Patients who were FDA eligible, compared with those who were not, were younger (70.0 vs. 72.0 years of age), more likely to be male (57.7 vs. 50.3%), and had less burden of co-morbidities.ConclusionsThe majority of patients with DM who are hospitalized with HF are not eligible for SGLT-2 inhibitor therapies. Ongoing studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of SGLT-2 inhibitors among patients with HF may potentially broaden the population that may benefit from these therapies.

Background Limited data exist to guide treatment for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation, including the important decision regarding rate versus rhythm control. Methods and Results We analyzed the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims data from 2008 to 2014 to describe current treatments for rate versus rhythm control and subsequent outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation using inverse probability weighted analysis. Rhythm control was defined as use of an antiarrhythmic medication, cardioversion, or AF ablation or surgery. Rate control was defined as use of any combination of β-blocker, calcium channel blocker, and digoxin without evidence of rhythm control. Among 15 682 fee-for-service Medicare patients, at the time of discharge, 1857 were treated with rhythm control and 13 825 with rate control, with minimal differences in baseline characteristics between groups. There was higher all-cause death at 1 year in the rate control compared with the rhythm control group (37.5% and 30.8%, respectively, P

BackgroundDiabetes mellitus is an increasingly prevalent condition among heart failure (HF) patients. The long-term morbidity and mortality among patients with and without diabetes with HF with reduced (HFrEF), borderline (HFbEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are not well described.MethodsUsing the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-HF Registry linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, we evaluated differences between HF patients with and without diabetes. Adjusted Cox proportional-hazard models controlling for patient and hospital characteristics were used to evaluate mortality and readmission outcomes.ResultsA cohort of 86,659 HF patients aged ≥65 years was followed for 3 years from discharge. Unadjusted all-cause mortality was between 4.4% and 5.5% and all-cause hospitalization was between 19.4% and 22.6% for all groups at 30 days. For all-cause mortality at 3 years from hospital discharge, diabetes was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.27 (95% CI 1.07-1.49, P = .0051) for HFrEF, 0.95 (95% CI 0.55-1.65, P = .8536) for HFbEF, 1.02 (95% CI 0.87-1.19, P = .8551) for HFpEF. For all-cause readmission, diabetes was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI 0.87-1.29, P = .5585) for HFrEF, 1.48 (95% CI 1.15-1.90, P = .0023) for HFbEF, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.91-1.22, P = .4747) for HFpEF.ConclusionsHFrEF and HFbEF patients with diabetes are at increased risk for mortality and rehospitalization after hospitalization for HF, independent of other patient and hospital characteristics. Among HFpEF patients, diabetes does not appear to be independently associated with significant additional risks.

Background The angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor ( ARNI ) sacubitril/valsartan reduces hospitalization and mortality for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, adoption of ARNI into clinical practice has been slow. Factors influencing use of ARNI have not been fully elucidated. Using data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, Hospital Compare, Dartmouth Atlas, and the American Hospital Association Survey, we sought to identify hospital characteristics associated with patient-level receipt of an ARNI prescription. Methods and Results We analyzed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were eligible for ARNI prescription (ejection fraction≤40%, no contraindications) and hospitalized from October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. We used logistic regression to estimate the associations between hospital characteristics and patient ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals using generalized estimating equation methods and adjusting for patient-level covariates. Of 16 674 eligible hospitalizations from 210 hospitals, 1020 patients (6.1%) were prescribed ARNI at discharge. The median hospital-level proportion of patients prescribed ARNI was 3.3% (Q1, Q3: 0%, 12.6%). After adjustment for patient-level covariates, for-profit hospitals had significantly higher odds of ARNI prescription compared with not-for-profit hospitals (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI , 1.05-6.10; P=0.04), and hospitals located in the Western United States had lower odds of ARNI prescription compared with those in the Northeast (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI , 0.13-0.84; P=0.02). Conclusions Relatively few hospital characteristics were associated with ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, in contrast to what has been observed in early adoption in other disease areas. Additional evaluation of barriers to implementing new evidence into heart failure practice is needed.

AimsReadmission rates for patients with heart failure have consistently remained high over the past two decades. As more electronic data, computing power, and newer statistical techniques become available, data-driven care could be achieved by creating predictive models for adverse outcomes such as readmissions. We therefore aimed to review models for predicting risk of readmission for patients admitted for heart failure. We also aimed to analyze and possibly group the predictors used across the models.MethodsMajor electronic databases were searched to identify studies that examined correlation between readmission for heart failure and risk factors using multivariate models. We rigorously followed the review process using PRISMA methodology and other established criteria for quality assessment of the studies.ResultsWe did a detailed review of 334 papers and found 25 multivariate predictive models built using data from either health system or trials. A majority of models was built using multiple logistic regression followed by Cox proportional hazards regression. Some newer studies ventured into non-parametric and machine learning methods. Overall predictive accuracy with C-statistics ranged from 0.59 to 0.84. We examined significant predictors across the studies using clinical, administrative, and psychosocial groups.ConclusionsComplex disease management and correspondingly increasing costs for heart failure are driving innovations in building risk prediction models for readmission. Large volumes of diverse electronic data and new statistical methods have improved the predictive power of the models over the past two decades. More work is needed for calibration, external validation, and deployment of such models for clinical use.

Aims:There is a paucity of data on the influence of diabetes on long-term outcomes after ischaemic stroke (IS). We assessed whether outcomes after IS differ between patients with and without diabetes. Methods and results:Patients aged ≥65 years (n = 409 060) in Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (nationwide registry of stroke patients from 1690 sites in the USA) were followed for 3 years post-discharge. The outcomes of interest were mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular hospitalizations, heart failure (HF), and recurrence of IS/transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Patients with diabetes (29.6%) were younger and had more comorbidities. At 3 years post-discharge after IS, diabetes was associated with higher risks of adverse outcomes: all-cause mortality [cumulative incidence 46.0% vs. 44.2%, absolute difference (AD) 1.8%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.25], all-cause readmission (71.3% vs. 63.7%, AD 7.6%; aHR 1.22, 1.21-1.23), composite of mortality and all-cause readmission (84.1% vs. 79.3%, AD 4.8%; aHR 1.21, 1.20-1.22), composite of mortality and cardiovascular readmission (69.5% vs. 64.3%, AD 5.2%; aHR 1.19, 1.18-1.20), IS/TIA readmission (15.9% vs. 13.3%, AD 2.6%; aHR 1.18, 1.16-1.20), HF readmission (10.3% vs. 6.4%, AD 3.9%; aHR 1.60, 1.56-1.64), non-cardiovascular readmission (58.3% vs. 50.3%, AD 8.0%; aHR 1.28, 1.26-1.29), and non-IS/TIA readmission (67.6% vs. 59.7%, AD 7.9%; aHR 1.23, 1.22-1.25). Accounting for the initial severity of stroke using the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale as well as using propensity score matching method as a sensitivity analysis, did not modify the results. Conclusion:Among older IS patients diabetes was associated with increased risks of death, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular hospitalizations, HF, and IS/TIA recurrence.

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Despite advancement in the management of HF, outcomes remain suboptimal, particularly among the uninsured. In 2014, the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility, and millions of low-income adults gained insurance. Little is known about Medicaid expansion's effect on inpatient HF care.Methods and resultsWe used the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to assess changes in inpatient care quality and outcomes among low-income patients (

BackgroundSurveys 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).ObjectivesThis study sought to characterize home-time following hospitalization for HF and assess its relationship with patient characteristics and traditionally reported clinical outcomes.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsAmong 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).ConclusionsHome-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.

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to analyze cumulative Medicare expenditures at index admission and after discharge by race or ethnicity.BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a growing proportion of heart failure (HF) admissions. Research on health care expenditures for patients with HFpEF is limited.MethodsRecords of patients discharged from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between 2006 and 2014 were linked to Medicare data. The primary outcome was unadjusted payments for acute care services. Comparisons between race/ethnic groups were made using generalized linear mixed models. Cost ratios were reported by race/ethnicity, and adjustments were made sequentially for patient characteristics, hospital factors, and regional socioeconomic status.ResultsMedian Medicare costs for index hospitalizations were $7,241 for the entire cohort, $7,049 for whites, $8,269 for blacks, $8,808 for Hispanics, $8,477 for Asians, and $8,963 for other races. Median costs at 30 days for readmitted patients were $9,803 and $17,456 for the entire cohort at 1-year. No significant differences were seen in index admission cost ratios by race/ethnicity. At 30 days among readmitted patients, costs were 9% higher (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1% to 17%; p = 0.020) for blacks in the fully adjusted model than whites. At 1 year, costs were 14% higher (95% CI: 9% to 18%; p < 0.001) for blacks, 7% higher (95% CI: 0% to 14%; p = 0.041) for Hispanics, and 24% higher (95% CI: 8% to 42%; p = 0.003) for patients of other races. No significant differences between white and Asian expenditures were noted.ConclusionsMinority patients with HFpEF have greater acute care service costs. Further research of improving care delivery is needed to reduce acute care use for vulnerable populations.

Adoption of electronic health record (EHR) systems has increased significantly across the nation. Whether EHR use has translated into improved quality of care and outcomes in heart failure (HF) is not well studied. We examined participants from the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry who were admitted with HF in 2008 (N=21 222), using various degrees of EHR implementation (no EHR, partial EHR, and full EHR). We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine the relation between EHR status and several in-hospital quality metrics and outcomes. In a substudy of Medicare participants (N=8421), we assessed the relation between EHR status and rates of 30-day mortality, readmission, and a composite outcome. In the cohort, the mean age was 71±15 years, 49% were women, and 64% were white. The mean ejection fraction was 39±17%. Participants were admitted to hospitals with no EHR (N=1484), partial EHR (N=13 473), and full EHR (N=6265). There was no association between EHR status and several quality metrics (aside from β blocker at discharge) or in-hospital outcomes on multivariable adjusted logistic regression (P>0.05 for all comparisons). In the Medicare cohort, there was no association between EHR status and 30-day mortality, readmission, or the combined outcome. In a large registry of hospitalized patients with HF, there was no association between degrees of EHR implementation and several quality metrics and 30-day postdischarge death or readmission. Our results suggest that EHR may not be sufficient to improve HF quality or related outcomes.

ImportancePublic reporting of hospitals' 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates following heart failure hospitalization and the financial penalization of hospitals with higher rates have been associated with a reduction in 30-day readmissions but have raised concerns regarding the potential for unintended consequences.ObjectiveTo examine the association of the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) with readmission and mortality outcomes among patients hospitalized with heart failure within a prospective clinical registry that allows for detailed risk adjustment.Design, setting, and participantsInterrupted time-series and survival analyses of index heart failure hospitalizations were conducted from January 1, 2006, to December 31, 2014. This study included 115 245 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries across 416 US hospital sites participating in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. Data analysis took place from January 1, 2017, to June 8, 2017.ExposuresTime intervals related to the HRRP were before the HRRP implementation (January 1, 2006, to March 31, 2010), during the HRRP implementation (April 1, 2010, to September 30, 2012), and after the HRRP penalties went into effect (October 1, 2012, to December 31, 2014).Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted 30-day and 1-year all-cause readmission and mortality rates.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the study population (n = 115 245) was 80.5 (8.4) years, 62 927 (54.6%) were women, and 91 996 (81.3%) were white and 11 037 (9.7%) were black. The 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rate declined from 20.0% before the HRRP implementation to 18.4% in the HRRP penalties phase (hazard ratio (HR) after vs before the HRRP implementation, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P

BACKGROUND:Perceived risks of hyperkalemia and acute renal insufficiency may limit use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy in patients with heart failure, especially those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using clinical registry data linked to Medicare claims, we analyzed patients hospitalized with heart failure between 2005 and 2013 with a history of diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. We stratified patients by MRA use at discharge. We used inverse probability-weighted proportional hazards models to assess associations between MRA therapy and 30-day, 1-year, and 3-year mortality, all-cause readmission, and readmission for heart failure, hyperkalemia, and acute renal insufficiency. We performed interaction analyses for differential effects on 3-year outcomes for reduced, borderline, and preserved ejection fraction. Of 16 848 patients, 12.3% received MRA therapy at discharge. Higher serum creatinine was associated with lower odds of MRA use (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.71); serum potassium was not (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.11). There was no mortality difference between groups. MRA therapy was associated with greater risks of readmission for hyperkalemia and acute renal insufficiency and lower risks of long-term all-cause readmission. Patients on MRA therapy with borderline or preserved ejection fraction had greater risks of readmission for hyperkalemia (P=0.02) and acute renal insufficiency (P

BackgroundPublicly reported hospital risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are calculated for Medicare beneficiaries. Outcomes for older patients with AMI may not reflect general outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the relationship between hospital 30-day RSMRs for older patients (aged ≥65 years) and those for younger patients (aged 18 to 64 years) and all patients (aged ≥18 years) with AMI.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting986 hospitals in the ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry-Get With the Guidelines.ParticipantsAdults hospitalized for AMI from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2014.MeasurementsHospital 30-day RSMRs were calculated for older, younger, and all patients using an electronic health record measure of AMI mortality endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Hospitals were ranked by their 30-day RSMRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted. The correlation in hospital AMI achievement scores for each age group was also calculated using the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) Program method computed with the electronic health record measure.Results267 763 and 276 031 AMI hospitalizations among older and younger patients, respectively, were identified. Median hospital 30-day RSMRs were 9.4%, 3.0%, and 6.2% for older, younger, and all patients, respectively. Most top- and bottom-performing hospitals for older patients were neither top nor bottom performers for younger patients. In contrast, most top and bottom performers for older patients were also top and bottom performers for all patients. Similarly, HVBP achievement scores for older patients correlated weakly with those for younger patients (R = 0.30) and strongly with those for all patients (R = 0.92).LimitationMinority of U.S. hospitals.ConclusionHospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients. Incorporation of younger patients into assessment of hospital outcomes would permit further examination of the presence and effect of age-related quality differences.Primary funding sourceAmerican College of Cardiology.

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate (H-ISDN) in African Americans with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).BackgroundAmong African-American patients with HFrEF, H-ISDN was found to improve quality of life and lower HF-related hospitalization and mortality rates in the A-HEFT (African-American Heart Failure Trial). Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this therapy in clinical practice.MethodsVeterans Affairs patients with a hospital admission for HF between 2007 and 2013 were screened. Inclusion criteria included African-American race, left ventricular ejection fraction 2.0 mg/dl, or intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Adjusted hazard ratios were calculated for patients who received H-ISDN 6-months before admission compared with patients who did not receive H-ISDN, by using inverse probability weighting of propensity scores and a time to death analysis for 18 months of follow-up. Propensity scores were generated using patients' characteristics, left ventricular ejection fraction, laboratory values, and hospital characteristics.ResultsThe final cohort included 5,168 African-American patients with HF (mean age 65.2 years), with 15.2% treated with H-ISDN before index admission. After 18 months, there were 1,275 reported deaths (24.7%). The adjusted mortality rate at 18 months was 22.1% for patients receiving H-ISDN treatment and 25.2% for untreated patients (p = 0.009); adjusted hazard ratio: 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.73 to 1.00; p = 0.057).ConclusionsH-ISDN remains underused in African-American patients with HFrEF. In this cohort, the study found that H-ISDN use was associated with lower mortality rates in African-American patients with HFrEF when controlling for patient selection by using an inverse probability weighting of propensity scores.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduce mortality in many patients with heart failure (HF), but the current use and effectiveness of ICD/CRT in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are uncertain. We examined associations between kidney function and guideline-recommended prescription of ICD/CRT in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, a performance improvement program for hospitalized patients with HF. We compared differences in ICD and CRT prescription between the following categories of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR; mL/min/1.73 m2): ≥60, 59 to 30,

BackgroundGuidelines recommend continuation or initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB), in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.Methods and resultsUsing the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry, we linked clinical data from 16 052 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (ejection fraction ≤40%) patients with Medicare claims data. We divided ACEi/ARB-eligible patients into 4 categories based on admission and discharge ACEi/ARB use: continued (reference group), started, discontinued, or not started on therapy. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to determine the association between ACEi/ARB category and outcomes. Most, 90.5%, were discharged on ACEi/ARB (59.6% continued and 30.9% newly started). Of those discharged without ACEi/ARB, 1.9% were discontinued, and 7.5% were eligible but not started. Thirty-day mortality was 3.5% for patients continued and 4.1% for patients started on ACEi/ARB. In contrast, 30-day mortality was 8.8% for patients discontinued (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] 1.92; 95% CI 1.32-2.81; P

BackgroundIn 2009, the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke (GWTG-Stroke) program offered additional recognition if hospitals performed well on certain stroke quality measures. We sought to determine whether quality of care for all hospitals participating in GWTG-Stroke improved with this expanded recognition program.Methods and resultsWe examined hospital-level performance on 6 quality of care (process) measures and 1 defect-free composite quality measure for stroke following expansion of the existing performance measure recognition program. Compliance with all measures improved following launch of the expanded program, and this rate increased significantly for all 9 measures. When evaluated as the relative rate of increase in use over time, process improvement slowed significantly (P

BackgroundTimely reperfusion after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improves survival. Guidelines recommend primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 90 minutes of arrival at a PCI-capable hospital. The alternative is fibrinolysis within 30 minutes for those in those for whom timely transfer to a PCI-capable hospital is not feasible.Methods and resultsWe identified STEMI patients receiving reperfusion therapy at 229 hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease (GWTG-CAD) database (January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2008). Temporal trends in the use of fibrinolysis and PPCI, its timeliness, and in-hospital mortality outcomes were assessed. We also assessed predictors of fibrinolysis versus PPCI and compliance with performance measures. Defect-free care was defined as 100% compliance with all performance measures. We identified 29 190 STEMI patients, of whom 2441 (8.4%) received fibrinolysis; 38.2% of these patients achieved door-to-needle times ≤30 minutes. Median door-to-needle times increased from 36 to 60 minutes (P=0.005) over the study period. Among PPCI patients, median door-to-balloon times decreased from 94 to 64 minutes (P

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the variation in annual health care costs among patients with heart failure in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system.BackgroundHeart failure is associated with considerable use of health care resources, but little is known about patterns in patient characteristics related to higher costs.MethodsWe obtained VA utilization and cost records for all patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in fiscal year 2010. We compared total VA costs by patient demographic factors, comorbid conditions, and facility where they were treated in bivariate analyses. We regressed total costs on patient factors alone, VA facility alone, and all factors combined to determine the relative contribution of patient factors and facility to explaining cost differences.ResultsThere were 117,870 patients with heart failure, and their mean annual VA costs were $30,719 (SD 49,180) with more than one-half of their costs from inpatient care. Patients at younger ages, of Hispanic or black race/ethnicity, diagnosed with comorbid drug use disorders, or who died during the year had the highest costs (all p < 0.01). There was variation in costs by facility as mean adjusted costs ranged from approximately $15,000 to $48,000. In adjusted analyses, patient factors alone explained more of the variation in health care costs (R(2) = 0.116) compared with the facility where the patient was treated (R(2) = 0.018).ConclusionsA large variation in costs of heart failure patients was observed across facilities, although this was explained largely by patient factors. Improving the efficiency of VA resource utilization may require increased scrutiny of high-cost patients to determine if adequate value is being delivered to those patients.

Reducing hospital readmissions for patients with heart failure is a national priority, and quality improvement campaigns are targeting reductions of ≥20%. However, there are limited data on whether such targets have been met. We analyzed data from the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked to Medicare claims between 2009 and 2012 to describe trends and relative reduction of rates of 30-day all-cause readmission among patients with heart failure. A total of 21,264 patients with heart failure were included from 70 US sites from January 2009 to October 2012. Overall hospital-level, risk-adjusted, 30-day all-cause readmission rates declined slightly, from 20.0% (SD, 1.3%) in 2009 to 19.0% (SD, 1.2%) in 2012 (P=0.001). Only 1 in 70 (1.4%) hospitals achieved the 20% relative reduction in 30-day risk-adjusted readmission rates. A multivariable linear regression model was used to determine hospital-level factors associated with relative improvements in 30-day risk-adjusted readmissions between 2009 and 2012. Teaching hospitals had higher relative readmission rates as compared with their peers, and hospitals that used postdischarge heart failure disease management programs had lower relative readmission rates. Although there has been slight improvement in 30-day all-cause readmission rates during the past 4 years in patients with heart failure, few hospitals have seen large success.

BackgroundIn clinical trials, hydralazine-isosorbide dinitrate (H-ISDN) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction reduced morbidity and mortality among black patients and patients with intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. The effectiveness of H-ISDN in clinical practice is unknown.Methods and resultsUsing data from a clinical registry linked with Medicare claims, we examined the use and outcomes of H-ISDN between 2005 and 2011 among older patients hospitalized with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. We adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics using Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability weighting. Among 4663 eligible patients, 22.7% of black patients and 18.2% of patients not on an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker were newly prescribed H-ISDN therapy at discharge. By 3 years, the cumulative incidence rates of mortality and readmission were similar between treated and untreated patients. After multivariable adjustment, 3-year outcomes remained similar for mortality [black patients: hazard ratio (HR), 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.75-1.13; other patients: HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.79-1.09], all-cause readmission (black patients: HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.13; other patients: HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17), and cardiovascular readmission (black patients: HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19; other patients: HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.09). A post hoc analysis of Medicare Part D data revealed low postdischarge adherence to therapy.ConclusionsGuideline-recommended initiation of H-ISDN therapy at hospital discharge was uncommon, and adherence was low. For both black patients and patients of other races, there were no differences in outcomes between those treated and untreated at discharge.

BackgroundGuidelines for heart failure (HF) recommend prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy before hospital discharge; some of these therapies are included in publicly reported performance measures. The burden of new medications for individual patients has not been described.Methods and resultsWe used Get With The Guidelines-HF registry data from 2008 to 2013 to characterize prescribing, indications, and contraindications for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, β-blockers, aldosterone antagonists, hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate, and anticoagulants. The difference between a patient's medication regimen at hospital admission and that recommended by HF quality measures at discharge was calculated. Among 158 922 patients from 271 hospitals with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF, initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was indicated in 18.1% of all patients (55.5% of those eligible at discharge were not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers at admission), β-blockers in 20.3% (50.5% of eligible), aldosterone antagonists in 24.1% (87.4% of eligible), hydralazine/isosorbide dinitrate in 8.6% (93.1% of eligible), and anticoagulants in 18.0% (58.0% of eligible). Cumulatively, 0.4% of patients were eligible for 5 new medication groups, 4.1% for 4 new medication groups, 9.4% for 3 new medication groups, 10.1% for 2 new medication groups, and 22.7% for 1 new medication group; 15.0% were not eligible for new medications because of adequate prescribing at admission; and 38.4% were not eligible for any medications recommended by HF quality measures. Compared with newly indicated medications (mean, 1.45 ± 1.23), actual new prescriptions were lower (mean, 1.16 ± 1.00).ConclusionsA quarter of patients hospitalized with HF need to start >1 medication to meet HF quality measures. Systems for addressing medication initiation and managing polypharmacy are central to HF transitional care.

BackgroundImplantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), but whether this association holds among older patients with multiple comorbid illnesses and worse HF burden remains unclear.Methods and resultsUsing the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry and the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked with Medicare claims, we examined outcomes associated with primary-prevention ICD versus no ICD among HF patients aged ≥65 years in clinical practice. We included patients with an ejection fraction ≤35% who received (ICD Registry) and who did not receive (GWTG-HF) an ICD. Compared with patients with an ICD, patients in the non-ICD group were older and more likely to be female and white. In matched cohorts, the 3-year adjusted mortality rate was lower in the ICD group versus the non-ICD group (46.7% versus 55.8%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.76; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.83). There was no associated difference in all-cause readmission (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08) but a lower risk of HF readmission (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97). When compared with no ICD, ICDs were also associated with better survival in patients with ≤3 comorbidities (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87) and >3 comorbidities (HR 0.77; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and in patients with no hospitalization for HF (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86) and at least 1 prior HF hospitalization (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82). In subgroup analyses, there were no interactions between ICD and mortality risk for comorbidity burden (P=0.95) and for prior HF hospitalization (P=0.46).ConclusionAmong older HF patients, ICDs for primary prevention were associated with lower risk of mortality even among those with high comorbid illness burden and prior HF hospitalization.

BackgroundWhether heart rate upon discharge following hospitalization for heart failure is associated with long-term adverse outcomes and whether this association differs between patients with sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial fibrillation (AF) have not been well studied.Methods and resultsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study from clinical registry data linked to Medicare claims for 46 217 patients participating in Get With The Guidelines(®)-Heart Failure. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate the association between discharge heart rate and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and the composite outcome of mortality/readmission through 1 year. For SR and AF patients with heart rate ≥75, the association between heart rate and mortality (expressed as hazard ratio [HR] per 10 beats-per-minute increment) was significant at 0 to 30 days (SR: HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.39; AF: HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.29) and 31 to 365 days (SR: HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.20; AF: HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Similar associations between heart rate and all-cause readmission and the composite outcome were obtained for SR and AF patients from 0 to 30 days but only in the composite outcome for SR patients over the longer term. The HR from 0 to 30 days exceeded that from 31 to 365 days for both SR and AF patients. At heart rates

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities are under-represented in clinical trials of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This analysis investigates the association between primary prevention ICDs and mortality among Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients.Methods and resultsData from Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry and National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry were used to perform an adjusted comparative effectiveness analysis of primary prevention ICDs in Medicare, racial/ethnic minority patients (nonwhite race or Hispanic ethnicity). Mortality data were obtained from the Medicare denominator file. The relationship of ICD with survival was compared between minority and white non-Hispanic patients. Our analysis included 852 minority patients, 426 ICD and 426 matched non-ICD patients, and 2070 white non-Hispanic patients (1035 ICD and 1035 matched non-ICD patients). Median follow-up was 3.1 years. Median age was 73 years, and median ejection fraction was 23%. Adjusted 3-year mortality rates for minority ICD and non-ICD patients were 44.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2%-45.7%) and 54.3% (95% CI, 53.4%-55.1%), respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63-0.98; P=0.034). White non-Hispanic patients receiving an ICD had lower adjusted 3-year mortality rates of 47.8% (95% CI, 47.3%-48.3%) compared with 57.3% (95% CI, 56.8%-57.9%) for those with no ICD (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67%-0.83%; P

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in women.BackgroundClinical trials of primary prevention ICDs enrolled a limited number of women.MethodsUsing a propensity score method, we matched 490 women ≥65 years of age who received an ICD during a hospitalization for heart failure in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007, to 490 ICD-eligible women without an ICD hospitalized for heart failure in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure database from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality obtained from the Medicare Claims Database. An identical analysis was conducted in men.ResultsMedian follow-up for patients with an ICD was 4.6 years versus 3.2 years for patients with no ICD. Compared with women with no ICD, those with an ICD were younger and less frequently white. In the matched cohorts, the survival of women with an ICD was significantly longer than that of women without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.95; p = 0.013). Similarly, men with an ICD had longer survival than men without an ICD (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73, 95% confidence interval: 0.65 to 0.83; p < 0.0001). There was no interaction between sex and the presence of an ICD with respect to survival (p = 0.44).ConclusionsAmong older women with left ventricular dysfunction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival benefit that was nearly identical to that seen in men. These findings support the use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients regardless of sex.

BackgroundThe degree to which outcomes following hospitalization for acute heart failure (HF) vary by racial and ethnic groups is poorly characterized. We sought to compare 30-day and 1-year rehospitalization and mortality rates for HF among 4 race/ethnic groups.Methods and resultsUsing the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry linked with Medicare data, we compared 30-day and 1-year outcomes between racial/ethnic groups by using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for clinical, hospital, and socioeconomic status characteristics. We analyzed 47 149 Medicare patients aged ≥65 years who had been discharged for HF between 2005 and 2011: there were 39 213 whites (83.2%), 4946 blacks (10.5%), 2347 Hispanics (5.0%), and 643 Asians/Pacific Islanders (1.4%). Relative to whites, blacks and Hispanics had higher 30-day and 1-year unadjusted readmission rates but lower 30-day and 1-year mortality; Asians had similar 30-day readmission rates but lower 1-year mortality. After risk adjustment, blacks had higher 30-day and 1-year CV readmission than whites but modestly lower short- and long-term mortality; Hispanics had higher 30-day and 1-year readmission rates and similar 1-year mortality than whites, while Asians had similar outcomes. When socioeconomic status data were added to the model, the majority of associations persisted, but the difference in 30-day and 1-year readmission rates between white and Hispanic patients became nonsignificant.ConclusionsAmong Medicare patients hospitalized with HF, short- and long-term readmission rates and mortality differed among the 4 major racial/ethnic populations and persisted even after controlling for clinical, hospital, and socioeconomic status variables.

BackgroundIn 2009, the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure program enhanced the standard recognition of hospitals by offering additional recognition if hospitals performed well on certain quality measures. We sought to determine whether initiation of this enhanced recognition opportunity led to acceleration in quality of care for all hospitals participating in the program.Methods and resultsWe examined hospital-level performance on 9 quality-of-care (process) measures that were added to an existing recognition program (based on existing published performance measures). The rate of increase in use over time 6 months to 2 years after the start of the program was compared with the rate of increase in use for the measures during the 18-month period prior to the start of the program. Use increased for all 9 new quality measures from 2008 to 2011. Among 4 measures with baseline use near or lower than 50%, a statistically significant greater increase in use during the program was seen for implantable cardioverter defibrillator use (program versus preprogram use: odds ratio 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23). Among the 5 measures for which baseline use was 50% or higher, the increase in influenza vaccination rates actually slowed. There was no evidence of adverse impact on the 4 established quality measures, a composite of which actually increased faster during the expanded program (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15).ConclusionsA program providing expanded hospital recognition for heart failure had mixed results in accelerating the use of 9 quality measures.

ImportanceClinical trials of prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have included a minority of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 30% and 35%. Because a large number of ICDs in the United States are implanted in such patients, it is important to study survival associated with this therapy.ObjectiveTo characterize patients with LVEF between 30% and 35% and compare the survival of those with and without ICDs.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD registry (January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2007) with an LVEF between 30% and 35% who received an ICD during a heart failure hospitalization and similar patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) database (January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009) with no ICD. The analysis was repeated in patients with an LVEF less than 30%. There were 3120 patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% (816 in matched cohorts) and 4578 with an LVEF less than 30% (2176 in matched cohorts). Propensity score matching and Cox models were applied.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality; data were obtained from Medicare claims through December 31, 2011.ResultsThere were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the matched groups (n = 408 for both groups). Among patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35%, there were 248 deaths in the ICD Registry group, within a median follow-up of 4.4 years (interquartile range, 2.7-4.9) and 249 deaths in the GWTG HF group, within a median follow-up of 2.9 years (interquartile range, 2.1-4.4). The risk of all-cause mortality in patients with an LVEF between 30% and 35% and an ICD was significantly lower than that in matched patients without an ICD (3-year mortality rates: 51.4% vs 55.0%; hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-0.99]; P = .04). Presence of an ICD also was associated with better survival in patients with an LVEF less than 30% (3-year mortality rates: 45.0% vs 57.6%; 634 and 660 total deaths; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.65-0.81]; P

BackgroundPrior claims analyses suggest that the use of intravenous inotropic therapy for patients hospitalized with heart failure varies substantially by hospital. Whether differences in the clinical characteristics of the patients explain observed differences in the use of inotropic therapy is not known.Methods and resultsWe sought to characterize institutional variation in inotrope use among patients hospitalized with heart failure before and after accounting for clinical factors of patients. Hierarchical generalized linear regression models estimated risk-standardized hospital-level rates of inotrope use within 209 hospitals participating in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry between 2005 and 2011. The association between risk-standardized rates of inotrope use and clinical outcomes was determined. Overall, an inotropic agent was administered in 7691 of 126 564 (6.1%) heart failure hospitalizations: dobutamine 43%, dopamine 24%, milrinone 17%, or a combination 16%. Patterns of inotrope use were stable during the 7-year study period. Use of inotropes varied significantly between hospitals even after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics (median risk-standardized hospital rate, 5.9%; interquartile range, 3.7%-8.6%; range, 1.3%-32.9%). After adjusting for case-mix and hospital structural differences, model intraclass correlation indicated that 21% of the observed variation in inotrope use was potentially attributable to random hospital effects (ie, institutional preferences). Hospitals with higher risk-standardized inotrope use had modestly longer risk-standardized length of stay (P=0.005) but had no difference in risk-standardized inpatient mortality (P=0.12).ConclusionsUse of intravenous inotropic agents during hospitalization for heart failure varies significantly among US hospitals even after accounting for patient and hospital factors.

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the long-term outcomes of patients hospitalized with heart failure and atrial fibrillation.BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is common among patients hospitalized with heart failure. Associations of pre-existing and new-onset atrial fibrillation with long-term outcomes are unclear.MethodsWe analyzed 27,829 heart failure admissions between 2006 and 2008 at 281 hospitals in the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure program linked with Medicare claims. Patients were classified as having pre-existing, new-onset, or no atrial fibrillation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors that were independently associated with all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and readmission for heart failure, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease at 1 and 3 years.ResultsAfter multivariable adjustment, pre-existing atrial fibrillation was associated with greater 3-year risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14 [99% confidence interval (CI): 1.08 to 1.20]), all-cause readmission (HR: 1.09 [99% CI: 1.05 to 1.14]), heart failure readmission (HR: 1.15 [99% CI: 1.08 to 1.21]), and stroke readmission (HR: 1.20 [99% CI: 1.01 to 1.41]), compared with no atrial fibrillation. There was also a greater hazard of mortality at 1 year among patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation (HR: 1.12 [99% CI: 1.01 to 1.24]). Compared with no atrial fibrillation, new-onset atrial fibrillation was not associated with a greater risk of the readmission outcomes. Stroke readmission rates at 1 year were just as high for patients with preserved ejection fraction as for patients with reduced ejection fraction.ConclusionsBoth pre-existing and new-onset atrial fibrillation were associated with greater long-term mortality among older patients with heart failure. Pre-existing atrial fibrillation was associated with greater risk of readmission.

BackgroundLittle is known about how often contextual factors such as patient preferences and competing priorities impact prescribing of guideline-recommended medications, or about the extent to which these factors are documented in medical records and available to performance measurement systems.MethodsMixed-methods study of 295 veterans aged 50 years and older in 4 VA health care systems who had systolic heart failure and were not prescribed a β-blocker and/or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker. Reasons for nontreatment were identified from clinic notes and from interviews with 62 primary care clinicians caring for these patients. These reasons were classified using a published taxonomy.ResultsAmong 295 patients not receiving guideline-recommended drugs for heart failure, chart review identified biomedical reasons for nonprescribing in 42%-58% of patients and contextual reasons in 11%-17%. Clinician interviews identified twice as many reasons for nonprescribing as chart review (mean 1.6 vs. 0.8 reasons per patient, P

The article discusses a study which determined the effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as a medical intervention in older patients. The importance of total mortality and the ratio of arrhythmic to nonarrhythmic death in determining the value of an ICD is provided. It suggests that the ICD to at least 75 years of age or older has a better value in terms of life years gained. Further studies to determine on the age limit and fill in other knowledge not addressed by clinical trials are recommended.