Search

Background Accountable care organizations (ACOs) aim to improve health care quality and reduce costs, including among patients with heart failure (HF). However, variation across ACOs in admission rates for patients with HF and associated factors are not well described. Methods and Results We identified Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with HF who were assigned to a Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO in 2017 and survived ≥30 days into 2018. We calculated risk-standardized acute admission rates across ACOs, assigned ACOs to 1 of 3 performance categories, and examined associations between ACO characteristics and performance categories. Among 1 232 222 beneficiaries with HF, 283 795 (mean age, 81 years; 54% women; 86% White; 78% urban) were assigned to 1 of 467 Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs. Across ACOs, the median risk-standardized acute admission rate was 87 admissions per 100 people, ranging from 61 (minimum) to 109 (maximum) admissions per 100 beneficiaries. Compared to the overall average, 13% of ACOs performed better on risk-standardized acute admission rates, 72% were no different, and 14% performed worse. Most ACOs with better performance had fewer Black beneficiaries and were not hospital affiliated. Most ACOs that performed worse than average were large, located in the Northeast, had a hospital affiliation, and had a lower proportion of primary care providers. Conclusions Admissions are common among beneficiaries with HF in ACOs, and there is variation in risk-standardized acute admission rates across ACOs. ACO performance was associated with certain ACO characteristics. Future studies should attempt to elucidate the relationship between ACO structure and characteristics and admission risk.

Aims: To optimize guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure, patients may require the initiation of multiple neurohormonal antagonists (NHAs) during and following hospitalization. The safety of this approach for older adults is not well established., Methods and Results: We conducted an observational cohort study of 207 223 Medicare beneficiaries discharged home following a hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (2008-2015). We performed Cox proportional hazards regression to examine the association between the count of NHAs initiated within 90 days of hospital discharge (as a time-varying exposure) and all-cause mortality, all-cause rehospitalization, and fall-related adverse events over the 90 day period following hospitalization. We calculated inverse probability-weighted hazard ratios (IPW-HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing initiation of 1, 2, or 3 NHAs vs. 0. The IPW-HRs for mortality were 0.80 [95% CI (0.78-0.83)] for 1 NHA, 0.70 [95% CI (0.66-0.75)] for 2, and 0.94 [95% CI (0.83-1.06)] for 3. The IPW-HRs for readmission were 0.95 [95% CI (0.93-0.96)] for 1 NHA, 0.89 [95% CI (0.86-0.91)] for 2, and 0.96 [95% CI (0.90-1.02)] for 3. The IPW-HRs for fall-related adverse events were 1.13 [95% CI (1.10-1.15)] for 1 NHA, 1.25 [95% CI (1.21-1.30)] for 2, and 1.64 [95% CI (1.54-1.76)] for 3., Conclusions: Initiating 1-2 NHAs among older adults within 90 days of HFrEF hospitalization was associated with lower mortality and lower readmission. However, initiating 3 NHAs was not associated with reduced mortality or readmission and was associated with a significant risk for fall-related adverse events., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Introduction: Beta-blockers (BB) and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are foundational for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, given the increased risk of side effects in older patients, uncertainty remains as to whether, on net, older patients benefit as much as the younger patients studied in trials., Methods and Results: Using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare data, overlap propensity weighted Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between BB and RASi use at hospital discharge and 30-day and 1-year outcomes among patients with HFrEF. Among the 48,711 patients (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with HFrEF, there were significant associations between BB and/or RASi use at discharge and lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality, including those over age 85 (30-day hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.70; 1-year hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.78). In addition, the magnitude of benefit associated with BB and/or RASi use after discharge did not decrease with advancing age. Even among the oldest patients, those over age 85, with hypotension, renal insufficiency or frailty, BB and/or RASi use at discharge was still associated with lower 1-year mortality or readmission., Conclusions: Among older patients hospitalized with HFrEF, BB and/or RASi use at discharge is associated with lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality across all age groups and the magnitude of this benefit does not seem to decrease with advancing age. These data suggest that, absent a clinical contraindication, BB and RASi should be considered in all patients hospitalized with HFrEF before or at hospital discharge, regardless of age., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Dr Deepak L. Bhatt discloses the following relationships: Advisory Board: AngioWave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; Board of Directors: AngioWave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; Chair: Inaugural Chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; Consultant: Broadview Ventures; Data Monitoring Committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, and Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol-Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor in chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor; associate editor), K2P (cochair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today's Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (CME steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry Steering Committee (Chair), and VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); Patent: Sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon; neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, and 89Bio; Royalties: Elsevier (editor, Braunwald's Heart Disease); site co-investigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; Trustee: American College of Cardiology; Unfunded Research: FlowCo and Takeda. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Contemporary patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are older and have a higher prevalence of cognitive impairment than those studied in trials. The risk/benefit trade-off of routine beta-blocker (BB) use in patients with HFrEF and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) has not been explored. This study aimed to determine the association between BB use and outcomes among patients with HFrEF and ADRD., Methods: Using a random 40% sample of Medicare Parts A, B, and D data we identified patients with ≥1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2018. Each patient was classified based on BB use prior to admission and after discharge. Outcomes include 90-day and 1-year mortality and readmission., Results: Between 2008 and 2018, we identified 357,030 patients hospitalized with HFrEF; 12.7% had ADRD. Patients with HFrEF and ADRD had higher 90-day and 1-year mortality compared to patients with HFrEF-only. Among patients admitted on a BB, 60.5% of patients with HFrEF-only were continued on therapy after discharge, compared to 56.8% of patients with HFrEF and ADRD. Discontinuing BB was associated with a 2.2-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HF-only and a 2.- fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF + ADRD. Not starting a BB was associated with a 1.8-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF-only and a 1.7-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF + ADRD. Similar risks were seen at 1 year., Conclusions: BB therapy is associated with significantly lower short and long-term mortality rates among all patients with HFrEF; the magnitude of these associated benefits appear at least as large in patients with HFrEF and ADRD compared to patients with HFrEF-only., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)

HF Medications for Hypotension or CKDThe cornerstone of treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction is GDMT; however, safely delivering maximal therapy is often hampered by low blood pressure, labile renal function, or both. Reviewing the physiologic basis of GDMT and exploring each drug's mechanism of action and unique properties can enable careful initiation and titration of therapy, even in patients with hypotension or CKD.

Background: Pivotal CRT trials enrolled patients with HFrEF significantly younger than the typical contemporary patient with HFrEF. Thus, the risks and benefits in this older population with HFrEF are largely unknown. We sought to perform meta-analyses comparing safety and effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in older vs younger patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried for comparative effectiveness studies of CRT in older patients with HFrEF. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed to identify studies comparing at least 1 prespecified end point between older and younger adult patients with at least 50 participants. Random effects meta-analysis in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) mean difference (older minus younger) and the relative risk (RR) of death, improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and complications are reported along with estimates of heterogeneity. In 7 studies, there was similar LVEF improvement between groups (mean difference 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.04 to 2.32, P = .06, I 2  = 53%). Older patients were equally likely as younger patients to see an improvement in NYHA functional class of at least 1 in 6 studies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.06, P = .76, I 2  = 25%). No significant differences in the incidence of hematoma, pneumothorax, lead dislodgment, cardiac perforation, or infection requiring explant was observed. The RR of mortality in 11 studies demonstrated higher risk of all-cause mortality in older patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.08, P < .01, I 2  = 0%)., Conclusions: Compared with younger patients, older patients receiving CRT were equally likely to experience improvement in LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and NYHA functional class. There was no difference in procedural complications. The higher rate of all-cause mortality in older patients likely reflects a greater underlying risk of death from competing causes., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess the comparative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in older Medicare patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Background: Despite growing numbers of older patients with HFrEF, the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in this group are largely unknown., Methods: A cohort of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with HFrEF and enrolled in Medicare Part D who underwent CRT-D or ICD implantation from January 2008 to August 2015 was identified. Beneficiaries were divided by age (65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years), and outcomes were compared between the CRT-D and ICD groups after inverse probability weighting., Results: Compared with the ICD group, the CRT-D group was older and more likely to be White, be female, and have left bundle branch block. After weighting, overall complications were high across age and device groups (14%-20%). The 1-year mortality was high across all groups. In the 2 oldest age strata, the hazard of death was lower in the CRT-D group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95 and HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90, respectively; P < 0.001); the hazard of heart failure hospitalization was lower for CRT-D vs ICD in the 85+ years age group (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.92; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In older Medicare beneficiaries undergoing ICD with or without CRT, complications and 1-year mortality were high. Compared with ICD alone, CRT-D was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in patients ≥74 years of age and lower hazard of HF hospitalization in those ≥85 years of age. These findings support the use of CRT in eligible older patients undergoing ICD implantation., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Zeitler has received consulting fees from Medtronic, Inc; and research funding from Boston Scientific. Dr Friedman has received educational grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott; research grants from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, Boston Scientific, Abbott, Medtronic, and Biosense Webster; and consulting fees from Abbott and AtriCure. Dr Skinner is a program director at the National Bureau of Economic Research; has received consulting fees from Sutter Health; and is an equity shareholder in Dorsata, Inc. Dr Al-Khatib has received research fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott; and speaker fees from Medtronic. 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. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In the PARADIGM-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated a 20% reduction in mortality and heart failure hospitalization compared with standard angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy. Despite this and a class I indication, drug diffusion has been much slower than anticipated. This study aims to examine the variation in early diffusion of sacubitril/valsartan and describe the factors associated with high and low rates of early use., Study Design: Annual, cross-sectional analyses between January 2016 and December 2018., Methods: We created a nationally representative cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction fully enrolled in parts A, B, and D for at least 1 year between 2016 and 2018. Sacubitril/valsartan use was determined using National Drug Codes. We generated age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of sacubitril/valsartan prescribing by hospital referral region from 2016 to 2018. We also examined the factors associated with high and low rates of early use., Results: Early use rates of sacubitril/valsartan were low: 1.9% in 2016, 3.3% in 2017, and 4.0% in 2018. Even after controlling for out-of-pocket co-payments, there was substantial geographic variation in early use, with most early use concentrated in the Northeast and South., Conclusions: There has been substantial variation in the early diffusion of sacubitril/valsartan. In addition to drug cost, geographic prescribing patterns appear to play a major role in early drug diffusion.

Background/objectives: Neurohormonal therapy, which includes beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs), is the cornerstone of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treatment. While neurohormonal therapies have demonstrated efficacy in randomized clinical trials, older patients, which now comprise the majority of HFrEF patients, were underrepresented in those original trials. This study aimed to determine the association between short- (30 day) and long-term (1 year) mortality and the use of neurohormonal therapy in HFrEF patients, across the age spectrum., Design/setting/participants: This is a population-based, retrospective, cohort study between January 2008 and December 2015. We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of 295,494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least one hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2015. All analyses were performed between May 2019 and July 2020., Exposure: We used Part D data to determine exposure to beta-blocker and ACEi and ARB therapy., Results: We found that in 295,494 patients admitted for HFrEF between 2008 and 2015, the average age was 80 years, 54% were female and 17% were non-white. The baseline mortality rate was higher among those aged ≥85, but the mortality benefits of neurohormonal therapy were preserved across the age spectrum. Among those ≥85 years old, the hazard ratio for death within 30 days was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.62; p < 0.001) for beta-blockers and 0.47 (95% CI 0.44-0.49; p < 0.001) for ACEi/ARBs. The hazard ratio for death within 1 year was 0.37-0.56 (95% CI 0.35-0.58; p < 0.001) for beta-blockers and 0.38-0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.55; p < 0.001) for ACEi/ARB., Conclusion: At a population level, neurohormonal therapy was associated with lower short- and long-term mortality across the age spectrum., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

BACKGROUND In January 2011, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services expanded the number of inpatient diagnosis codes from 9 to 25, which may influence comorbidity counts and risk-adjusted outcome rates for studies spanning January 2011. This study examines the association between (1) limiting versus not limiting diagnosis codes after 2011, (2) using inpatient-only versus inpatient and outpatient data, and (3) using logistic regression versus the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services risk-standardized methodology and changes in risk-adjusted outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS Using 100% Medicare inpatient and outpatient files between January 2009 and December 2013, we created 2 cohorts of fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65 years. The acute myocardial infarction cohort and the heart failure cohort had 578 728 and 1 595 069 hospitalizations, respectively. We calculate comorbidities using (1) inpatient-only limited diagnoses, (2) inpatient-only unlimited diagnoses, (3) inpatient and outpatient limited diagnoses, and (4) inpatient and outpatient unlimited diagnoses. Across both cohorts, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision ( ICD-9 ) diagnoses and hierarchical condition categories increased after 2011. When outpatient data were included, there were no significant differences in risk-adjusted readmission rates using logistic regression or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services risk standardization. A difference-in-differences analysis of risk-adjusted readmission trends before versus after 2011 found that no significant differences between limited and unlimited models for either cohort. CONCLUSIONS For studies that span 2011, researchers should consider limiting the number of inpatient diagnosis codes to 9 and/or including outpatient data to minimize the impact of the code expansion on comorbidity counts. However, the 2011 code expansion does not appear to significantly affect risk-adjusted readmission rate estimates using either logistic or risk-standardization models or when using or excluding outpatient data.

Background: The demographics of heart failure are changing. The rate of growth of the "older" heart failure population, specifically those ≥ 75, has outpaced that of any other age group. These older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials. There are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit tradeoff may be different in this population., Objective: We aimed to determine the association between receipt of a beta-blocker after heart failure discharge and early mortality and readmission rates among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), specifically patients aged 75+., Design and Participants: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥ 1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 to run an instrumental variable analysis., Main Measure: The primary measure was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary measure was 90-day, all-cause readmission., Key Results: Using the two-stage least squared methodology, among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker within 30-day of discharge was associated with a - 4.35% (95% CI - 6.27 to - 2.42%, p < 0.001) decrease in 90-day mortality and a - 4.66% (95% CI - 7.40 to - 1.91%, p = 0.001) decrease in 90-day readmission rates. Even among patients ≥ 75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker at discharge was also associated with a significant decrease in 90-day mortality, - 4.78% (95% CI - 7.19 to - 2.40%, p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions, - 4.67% (95% CI - 7.89 to - 1.45%, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients aged ≥ 75 years who receive a beta-blocker after HFrEF hospitalization have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit does not appear to wane with age. Absent a strong contraindication, all patients with HFrEF should attempt beta-blocker therapy at/after hospital discharge, regardless of age., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: To facilitate evidence-based medicine (EBM) on an individual level, it may be important for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to incorporate the performance parameters of diagnostic studies and therapeutic interventions (such as likelihood ratio and absolute benefit or harm), and to incorporate relevant patient contexts that may influence decision-making. We sought to determine the extent to which heart failure CPGs currently incorporate this information., Methods: We reviewed the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) 2013 Heart Failure CPG, the 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update, and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2016 Heart Failure CPG. We abstracted variables for each CPG recommendation from the following domains: quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, diagnostic and therapeutic performance parameters, and patient context., Results: We examined 169 recommendations from the ACCF/AHA 2013 CPGs and 2017 update and 187 recommendations from the 2016 ESC CPGs. Performance parameters for diagnostic studies (2013 ACCF/AHA: 13%; 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update: 0%; 2016 ESC: 0%) and therapeutic interventions (2013 ACCF/AHA: 65%; 2017 ACCF/AHA/HFSA update: 64%; 2016 ESC: 16%) were not commonly included in CPGs. Patient context was included in about half of ACCF/AHA recommendations and a quarter of ESC recommendations., Conclusions: The majority of recommendations from heart failure CPGs lack information on diagnostic and therapeutic performance parameters and patient context. Given the importance of these components to effectively implement EBM, particularly for a heterogeneous heart failure population, innovative strategies are needed to optimize CPGs so they provide comprehensive yet succinct recommendations that can improve population-level outcomes and ensure optimal patient-centered care., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To combat the high cost and increasing burden of quality reporting, the Medicare Payment Advisory (MedPAC) has recommended using claims data wherever possible to measure clinical quality. In this article, we use a cohort of Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explore the impact of changes in quality metric methodology on measured quality performance, the association with patient outcomes, and hospital rankings., Methods and Results: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D from 2008 to 2015 to create (1) a cohort of 295 494 fee-for-service beneficiaries with ≥1 hospitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals with ≥11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015. We used Part D data to calculate β-blocker use after discharge and β-blocker use over time. We then varied the quality metric methodologies to explore the impact on measured performance. We then used multivariable time-to-event analyses to explore the impact of metric methodology on the association between quality performance and patient outcomes and Kendall's Tau to describe impact of quality metric methodology on hospital rankings. We found that quality metric methodology had a significant impact on measured quality performance. The association between quality performance and readmissions was sensitive to changes in methodology but the association with 1-year mortality was not. Changes in quality metric methodology also had a substantial impact on hospital quality rankings., Conclusions: This article highlights how small changes in quality metric methodology can have a significant impact on measured quality performance, the association between quality performance and utilization-based outcomes, and hospital rankings. These findings highlight the need for standardized quality metric methodologies, better case-mix adjustment and cast further doubt on the use of utilization-based outcomes as quality metrics in chronic diseases.

Background Cardiac amyloidosis is a substantially underdiagnosed disease, and contemporary estimates of the epidemiology of amyloidosis are lacking. This study aims to determine the incidence and prevalence of cardiac amyloidosis among Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2012. Methods and Results Medicare beneficiaries were counted in the prevalence cohort in each year they had (1) ≥1 principal or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for amyloidosis and (2) ≥1 principal or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code for heart failure or cardiomyopathy within 2 years after the systemic amyloidosis code. A beneficiary was counted in the incidence cohort only during the first year in which they met criteria. Primary outcomes included the prevalence and incidence of hospitalizations for cardiac amyloidosis. There were 4746 incident cases of cardiac amyloidosis in 2012 and 15 737 prevalent cases in 2012. There was also a significant increase in the prevalence rate (8 to 17 per 100 000 person-years) and incidence rate (18 to 55 per 100 000 person-years) from 2000 to 2012, most notable after 2006. Incidence and prevalence increased substantially more among men, the elderly, and in blacks. Conclusions The incidence and prevalence rates of cardiac amyloidosis are higher than previously thought. The incidence and prevalence rates of cardiac amyloidosis among hospitalized patients have increased since 2000, particularly among specific patient subgroups and after 2006, suggesting improved amyloidosis awareness and higher diagnostic rates with noninvasive imaging. In light of these trends, cardiac amyloidosis should be considered during the initial work up of patients ≥65 years old hospitalized with heart failure.

Background Cardiology has advanced guideline development and quality measurement. Recognizing the substantial benefits of guideline-directed medical therapy, this study aims to measure and explain apparent deviations in heart failure ( HF ) guideline adherence by clinicians at hospital discharge and describe any impact on readmission rates. Methods and Results The extent of decongestion and prescription of neurohormonal therapy were recorded prospectively for 226 HF discharges, including 132 (58%) from an academic hospital and 94 (42%) from a community hospital. Among all discharges, 25% were discharged with residual congestion (30% academic versus 18% community, P=0.070). Among discharges of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, 37% (45% academic versus 18% community, P<0.001) were discharged without β-blocker therapy or with lower doses than at admission. Moreover, 46% of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (48% academic versus 39% community, P=0.390) were discharged without an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker or with lower doses than at admission. Renal dysfunction was the most common reason for discharge with congestion, and hypotension the most common reason for discharge with no or decreased neurohormonal therapy. There was a trend toward higher 90-day readmission rates after discharge with residual congestion. Conclusions Clinicians frequently deviate from guidelines in both academic and community hospitals; however, this deviation may not always indicate poor quality. Application of guidelines recommended for stable populations is increasingly limited for hospitalized patients by hypotension, renal dysfunction, and inotrope use. Patients with renal dysfunction, hypotension, and recent inotrope use merit further study to determine best practices and possibly to adjust quality metrics for HF severity.

Objective: The epidemiology of heart failure (HF) is changing. This study aimed to describe questions that arise during the routine care of HF patients that are unanswered by the current literature and describe how the type and focus of these questions has changed over time., Methods: Investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Heart Failure Apprentice Network collected and categorized questions from 5 academic hospitals over 12 months. A total of 174 unanswered questions were collected and analyzed., Results: Compared with 2004, there were more unanswered questions about "whether" to use therapies and fewer about "how" to use therapies. There were fewer questions about what therapeutic targets, therapy adjustment, and combination therapies. There were more questions about whether or how to stop therapies and how to add therapies back. Newly prominent topics, not observed in 2004, including novel therapeutics, refractory ventricular tachycardia, right heart failure, and nutrition/frailty, accounted for 24% of questions., Conclusions: Compared with 2004, there are fewer unanswered questions about how to use, adjust, and combine therapies. There were more unanswered questions about whether and how to stop therapies. Almost 25% of unanswered questions dealt with topics indicative of more advanced disease which were not observed in 2004., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines 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 Results: Using 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 [HR adj ] 1.92; 95% CI 1.32-2.81; P <0.001) and 7.5% for patients not started (HR adj 1.50; 95% CI 1.12-2.00; P =0.006). The 30-day readmission rate was lowest among patients continued or started on therapy. One-year mortality was 28.2% for patients continued and 29.7% for patients started on ACEi/ARB compared to 41.6% for patients discontinued (HR adj 1.35; 95% CI 1.13-1.61; P <0.001) and 41.7% (HR adj 1.28; 95% CI 1.14-1.43; P <0.001) for patients not started on therapy., Conclusions: Compared with continuation, withdrawal of ACEi/ARB during heart failure hospitalization is associated with higher rates of postdischarge mortality and readmission, even after adjustment for severity of illness., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Hospital readmission rates for heart failure (HF) are increasingly seen as a quality metric and are being used to define reimbursement rates and penalize underperforming hospitals. As disease patterns shift from single acute episodes of illness to more chronic and degenerative diseases, healthcare systems across the country are grappling with the challenge of providing quality care while simultaneously controlling both readmission rates and spending. Using HF as a prototypical example of chronic illness, this review begins by describing the historical underpinnings of readmission rates and how they have become a mainstream metric of healthcare quality. It then examines the controversial relationship between hospital quality and readmission rates. The paper examines several strategies to decrease readmission rates, including discharge planning and readmission reduction programs, as well as the relationship between readmission rates and mortality rates. The principal drivers of readmissions are discussed and the impact of new readmission-based financial policy is explored as well.

Background: Orthotopic heart transplant (OHT), followed by myeloablative chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), has been successful in the treatment of amyloid light-chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of survival to OHT in patients with end-stage heart failure due to AL amyloidosis and compare post-OHT survival of cardiac amyloid patients with survival of other cardiomyopathy patients undergoing OHT., Methods: From January 2000 to June 2011, 31 patients with end-stage heart failure secondary to AL amyloidosis were listed for OHT at Massachusetts General Hospital. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses identified predictors of survival to OHT. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared survival between the Massachusetts General Hospital amyloidosis patients and non-amyloid cardiomyopathy patients from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR)., Results: Low body mass index was the only predictor of survival to OHT in patients with end-stage heart failure caused by cardiac amyloidosis. Survival of cardiac amyloid patients who died before receiving a donor heart was only 63 ± 45 days after listing. Patients who survived to OHT received a donor organ at 53 ± 48 days after listing. Survival of AL amyloidosis patients on the waiting list was less than patients on the waiting list for all other non-amyloid diagnoses. The long-term survival of amyloid patients who underwent OHT was no different than the survival of non-amyloid, restrictive (p = 0.34), non-amyloid dilated (p = 0.34), or all non-amyloid cardiomyopathy patients (p = 0.22) in the SRTR database., Conclusions: Amyloid patients who survive to OHT, followed by ASCT, have a survival rate similar to other cardiomyopathy patients undergoing OHT; however, 35% of the patients died awaiting OHT. The only predictor of survival to OHT in AL amyloidosis patients was a low body mass index, which correlated with a shorter time on the waiting list. To optimize the survival of these patients, access to donor organs must be improved., (Copyright © 2014 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The demographics of heart failure are changing. The rate of growth of the "older" heart failure population, specifically those ≥ 75, has outpaced that of any other age group. These older patients were underrepresented in the early beta-blocker trials. There are several reasons, including a decreased potential for mortality benefit and increased risk of side effects, why the risk/benefit tradeoff may be different in this population. Objective: We aimed to determine the association between receipt of a beta-blocker after heart failure discharge and early mortality and readmission rates among patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), specifically patients aged 75+. Design and Participants: We used 100% Medicare Parts A and B and a random 40% sample of Part D to create a cohort of beneficiaries with ≥ 1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2016 to run an instrumental variable analysis. Main Measure: The primary measure was 90-day, all-cause mortality; the secondary measure was 90-day, all-cause readmission. Key Results: Using the two-stage least squared methodology, among all HFrEF patients, receipt of a beta-blocker within 30-day of discharge was associated with a − 4.35% (95% CI − 6.27 to − 2.42%, p < 0.001) decrease in 90-day mortality and a − 4.66% (95% CI − 7.40 to − 1.91%, p = 0.001) decrease in 90-day readmission rates. Even among patients ≥ 75 years old, receipt of a beta-blocker at discharge was also associated with a significant decrease in 90-day mortality, − 4.78% (95% CI − 7.19 to − 2.40%, p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions, − 4.67% (95% CI − 7.89 to − 1.45%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients aged ≥ 75 years who receive a beta-blocker after HFrEF hospitalization have significantly lower 90-day mortality and readmission rates. The magnitude of benefit does not appear to wane with age. Absent a strong contraindication, all patients with HFrEF should attempt beta-blocker therapy at/after hospital discharge, regardless of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]