Search

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Bradi B. Granger reports research funding through her institution from the American Heart Association, AstraZeneca, the Centers for Disease Control, the Alpha Phi Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr Fonarow reports consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. Dr Albert reports consulting for American Regent, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, and Merck and received research support from AstraZeneca and Novartis. Dr Butler has served as a consultant for Abbott, American Regent, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardiac Dimension, Cardior, CVRx, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Element Science, Innolife, Impulse Dynamics, Imbria, Inventiva, Lexicon, Lilly, LivaNova, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, Occlutech, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Pharmain, Roche, Sequana, SQ Innovation, and Vifor. Dr Allen received grant funding from the NIH and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute and consulting fees from ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, and Novartis. Dr Lanfear is a consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cytokinetics, Illumina, Janssen, Martin Pharmaceuticals, Vicardia, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute (Novartis) and has participated in clinical research from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Critical Diagnostics, Illumina, Lilly, Somalogic, and Janssen. Dr DeVore reports research funding through his institution from Biofourmis, Bodyport, Cytokinetics, American Regent Inc, NIH, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, and Story Health and also provides consulting services for and receives honoraria from Abiomed, Cardionomic, LivaNova, Natera, NovoNordisk, Story Health, and Zoll. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: It is unknown whether digital applications can improve guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement Clinical Trial for Heart Failure trial (CONNECT-HF) included an optional, prospective ancillary study of a mobile health application among patients hospitalized due to HFrEF. Digital users were matched to nonusers from the usual-care group. Coprimary outcomes included change in opportunity-based composite HF quality scores and HF rehospitalization or all-cause mortality. Among 2431 patients offered digital applications across the United States, 1526 (63%) had limited digital access or insufficient data, 425 (17%) were digital users, and 480 (20%) declined use. Digital users were similar in age to those who declined use (mean 58 vs 60 years; P = 0.031). Digital users (n = 368) vs matched nonusers (n = 368) had improved composite HF quality scores (48.0% vs 43.6%; + 4.76% [3.27-6.24]; P = 0.001) and composite clinical outcomes (33.0% vs 39.6%; HR 0.76 [0.59-0.97]; P = 0.027)., Conclusions: Among participants in the CONNECT-HF trial, use of digital applications was modest but was associated with higher HF quality-of-care scores, including use of GDMT and better clinical outcomes. Although cause and effect cannot be determined from this study, the application of technology to guide GDMT use and dosing among patients with HFrEF warrants further investigation., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr. Rao is supported by an NIH training grant (5T32HL069749-18). Dr. Fonarow reports consulting for Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Janssen, Medtronic, and Novartis. Dr. Albert reports consulting for Novartis. Dr. Lewis receives research funding from Novartis, Merck, Sanofi AstraZeneca and reports consulting for Novartis, Merck, and Dal-Cor. Dr Butler receives research support from and/or reports consulting for Abbott, Adrenomed, Amgen, Array, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squib, CVRx, G3 Pharmaceutical, Impulse Dynamics, Innolife, Janssen, LivaNova, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, NovoNordisk, Relypsa, Roche, V-Wave Limited, and Vifor. Dr Allen receives research funding from NIH, PCORI, and AHA, and consulting fees from ACI Clinical, Amgen/Cytokinetics, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Lanfear receives research funding from Amgen, Bayer, the NHLBI, Novartis, and Critical Diagnostics, and reports consulting for Amgen, Abbot Diagnostics, Abiomed, Ortho Diagnostics, Janssen, Hridaya, and the Duke Clinical Research Institute (Akros). Dr. Hernandez receives research funding from American Regent, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Verily, and reports consulting for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Merck, Myokardia and Novartis. Dr DeVore reports research funding through his institution from the American Heart Association, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Intra-Cellular Therapies, American Regent, the NHLBI, Novartis and PCORI; he also provides consulting services for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CareDx, InnaMed, LivaNova, Mardil Medical, Novartis, Procyrion, scPharmaceuticals, Story Health, and Zoll. He has also received nonfinancial support from Abbott for educational activities. The other authors have no disclosures., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Health system-level interventions to improve use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) often fail in the acute care setting. We sought to identify factors associated with high performance in adoption of GDMT among health systems in CONNECT-HF., Methods and Results: Site-level composite quality scores were calculated at discharge and last follow-up. Site performance was defined as the average change in score from baseline to last follow-up and analyzed by performance tertile using a mixed-effects model with baseline performance as a fixed effect and site as a random effect. Among 150 randomized sites, the mean 12-month improvement in GDMT was 1.8% (-26.4% to 60.0%). Achievement of 50% or more of the target dose for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and beta-blockers at 12 months was modest, even at the highest performing sites (median 29.6% [23%, 41%] and 41.2% [29%, 50%]). Sites achieving higher GDMT scores had care teams that included social workers and pharmacists, as well as patients who were able to afford medications and access medication lists in the electronic health record., Conclusions: Substantial gaps in site-level use of GDMT were found, even among the highest performing sites. The failure of hospital-level interventions to improve quality metrics suggests that a team-based approach to care and improved patient access to medications are needed for postdischarge success., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite multiple trials comparing rate with rhythm control, there is no consensus on the optimal management of first-detected atrial fibrillation (AF)., Objective: We analyzed current patterns of care for first-detected AF in the nationwide Get With The Guidelines® - Atrial Fibrillation registry., Methods: Patients hospitalized with first-detected AF from 2013 to 2019 were included, and a descriptive analysis was performed comparing planned rate with rhythm control. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for choosing rhythm over rate control., Results: Of the 86,759 patients with AF, 17.8% (15,473) had first-detected AF; 11,685 patients were included from 126 sites. Overall, 51.3% (5999) of patients were treated with rate control and 48.7% (5686) with rhythm control at admission. Patients with planned rhythm control had a shorter length of stay and were more likely to be discharged home than a facility. A higher percentage of patients with planned rhythm control were discharged on anticoagulation than those with planned rate control (75.6% vs 70.9%) despite a higher underlying stroke risk in the rate control group (higher median CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score 4; Q1-Q3 2-5 for rate control vs 3; Q1-Q3 2-4 for rhyhtm control; P < .001). While Hispanic ethnicity, Medicaid insurance, age >70 years, and liver disease decreased the likelihood of rhythm control, factors such as heart failure, stroke, or prior bleeding diathesis had no association with the chosen treatment strategy., Conclusion: Less than half of the patients with first-detected AF receive rhythm control at admission. Given recent trial results, further studies should assess the long-term impact of rhythm control on patients' symptoms and quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality., (Copyright © 2022 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Adoption of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is variable. Interventions to improve guideline-directed medical therapy have failed to consistently achieve target metrics, and limited data exist to inform efforts to improve heart failure quality of care., Objective: To evaluate the effect of a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care on heart failure outcomes and care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 161 US hospitals and included 5647 patients (2675 intervention vs 2972 usual care) followed up after a hospital discharge for acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The trial was performed from 2017 to 2020, and the date of final follow-up was August 31, 2020., Interventions: Hospitals (n = 82) randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention received regular education of clinicians by a trained group of heart failure and quality improvement experts and audit and feedback on heart failure process measures (eg, use of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF) and outcomes. Hospitals (n = 79) randomized to usual care received access to a generalized heart failure education website., Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were a composite of first heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality and change in an opportunity-based composite score for heart failure quality (percentage of recommendations followed)., Results: Among 5647 patients (mean age, 63 years; 33% women; 38% Black; 87% chronic heart failure; 49% recent heart failure hospitalization), vital status was known for 5636 (99.8%). Heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 38.6% in the intervention group vs 39.2% in usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05). The baseline quality-of-care score was 42.1% vs 45.5%, respectively, and the change from baseline to follow-up was 2.3% vs -1.0% (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.8% to 7.3%]), with no significant difference between the 2 groups in the odds of achieving a higher composite quality score at last follow-up (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.21])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFrEF in hospitals randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention vs usual care, there was no significant difference in time to first heart failure rehospitalization or death, or in change in a composite heart failure quality-of-care score., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03035474.

Many therapies have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF) in controlled settings, but there are limited data available to inform best practices for hospital and post-discharge quality improvement initiatives. The CONNECT-HF study is a prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 161 hospitals in the United States with a 2×2 factorial design. The study is designed to assess the effect of a hospital and post-discharge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care (primary objective) on HF outcomes and quality-of-care, as well as to evaluate the effect of hospitals implementing a patient-level digital intervention compared with usual care (secondary objective). The hospital and post-discharge intervention includes audit and feedback on HF clinical process measures and outcomes for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) paired with education to sites and clinicians by a trained, nationally representative group of HF and quality improvement experts. The patient-level digital intervention is an optional ancillary study and includes a mobile application and behavioral tools that are intended to facilitate improved use of guideline-directed recommendations for self-monitoring and self-management of activity and medications for HFrEF. The effects of the interventions will be measured through an opportunity-based composite score on quality and time-to-first HF readmission or death among patients with HFrEF who present to study hospitals with acute HF and who consent to participate. The CONNECT-HF study is evaluating approaches for implementing HF guideline recommendations into practice and is one of the largest HF implementation science trials performed to date., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Key Points: Question: Can a coordinated, multifaceted intervention increase the prescription of 3 evidence-based therapies among adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease? Findings: In a cluster randomized clinical trial of cardiology clinics across the US, participants in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) after an intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs those in the usual care group (173/457 [37.9%] vs 85/588 [14.5%], respectively, which is a difference of 23.4%). Meaning: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Importance: Evidence-based therapies to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk in adults with type 2 diabetes are underused in clinical practice. Objective: To assess the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the proportion of adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prescribed all 3 groups of recommended, evidence-based therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs] or angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 [SGLT2] inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists [GLP-1RAs]). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cluster randomized clinical trial with 43 US cardiology clinics recruiting participants from July 2019 through May 2022 and follow-up through December 2022. The participants were adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not already taking all 3 groups of evidence-based therapies. Interventions: Assessing local barriers, developing care pathways, coordinating care, educating clinicians, reporting data back to the clinics, and providing tools for participants (n = 459) vs usual care per practice guidelines (n = 590). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of participants prescribed all 3 groups of recommended therapies at 6 to 12 months after enrollment. The secondary outcomes included changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors and a composite outcome of all-cause death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or urgent revascularization (the trial was not powered to show these differences). Results: Of 1049 participants enrolled (459 at 20 intervention clinics and 590 at 23 usual care clinics), the median age was 70 years and there were 338 women (32.2%), 173 Black participants (16.5%), and 90 Hispanic participants (8.6%). At the last follow-up visit (12 months for 97.3% of participants), those in the intervention group were more likely to be prescribed all 3 therapies (173/457 [37.9%]) vs the usual care group (85/588 [14.5%]), which is a difference of 23.4% (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 4.38 [95% CI, 2.49 to 7.71]; P <.001) and were more likely to be prescribed each of the 3 therapies (change from baseline in high-intensity statins from 66.5% to 70.7% for intervention vs from 58.2% to 56.8% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.06-2.83]; ACEIs or ARBs: from 75.1% to 81.4% for intervention vs from 69.6% to 68.4% for usual care [adjusted OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.14-2.91]; SGLT2 inhibitors and/or GLP-1RAs: from 12.3% to 60.4% for intervention vs from 14.5% to 35.5% for usual care [adjusted OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.08-4.64]). The intervention was not associated with changes in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk factors. The composite secondary outcome occurred in 23 of 457 participants (5%) in the intervention group vs 40 of 588 participants (6.8%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33]). Conclusions and Relevance: A coordinated, multifaceted intervention increased prescription of 3 groups of evidence-based therapies in adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03936660 This cluster randomized clinical trial assesses the effect of a coordinated, multifaceted intervention of assessment, education, and feedback vs usual care on the prescribing of all 3 groups of recommended therapies (high-intensity statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and/or glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists) for adults with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hospitalized patients with heart failure and decreased ejection fraction are at substantial risk for mortality and rehospitalization, yet no acute therapies are proven to decrease this risk. Therefore, in-hospital use of medications proved to decrease long-term mortality is a critical strategy to improve outcomes. Although endorsed in guidelines, predictors of initiation and continuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, and aldosterone antagonists have not been well studied. We assessed noncontraindicated use patterns for the 3 medications using the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry from February 2009 through March 2010. Medication continuation was defined as treatment on admission and discharge. Multivariable logistic regression using generalized estimating equations was used to determine factors associated with discharge use. In total 9,474 patients were enrolled during the study period. Of those treated before hospitalization, overall continuation rates were 88.5% for ACE inhibitors/ARBs, 91.6% for β blockers, and 71.9% for aldosterone-antagonists. Of patients untreated before admission, 87.4% had ACE inhibitors/ARBs and 90.1% had β blocker initiated during hospitalization or at discharge, whereas only 25.2% were started on an aldosterone antagonist. In multivariate analysis, admission therapy was most strongly associated with discharge use (adjusted odds ratios 7.4, 6.0, and 20.9 for ACE inhibitors/ARBs, β blockers, and aldosterone antagonists, respectively). Western region, younger age, and academic affiliation were also associated with higher discharge use. Although ACE inhibitor/ARB and β-blocker continuation rates were high, aldosterone antagonist use was lower despite potential eligibility. In conclusion, being admitted on evidence-based medications is the most powerful, independent predictor of discharge use. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Multiple sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) have been shown to impart significant cardiovascular and kidney benefits, but are underused in clinical practice. Both SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA were first studied as glucose-lowering drugs, which may have impeded uptake by cardiologists in the wake of proven cardiovascular efficacy. Their significant effect on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes, which are largely independent of glucose-lowering effects, must drive a broader use of these drugs. Cardiologists are 3 times more likely than endocrinologists to see patients with both type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, thus they are ideally positioned to share responsibility for SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA treatment with primary care providers. In order to increase adoption, SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA must be reframed as primarily cardiovascular and kidney disease risk-reducing agents with a side effect of glucose-lowering. Coordinated and multifaceted interventions engaging clinicians, patients, payers, professional societies, and health systems must be implemented to incentivize the adoption of these medications as part of routine cardiovascular and kidney care. Greater use of SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA will improve outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk for cardiovascular and kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]