Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations.Methods: Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression.Results: Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases.Conclusions: Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Optimal stroke prevention strategies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who experience a major bleed are poorly defined. We sought to estimate the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation (OAC) represcription after an OAC contraindication. Methods: TREAT-AF is a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed AF (2004–2012), treated in the Veterans Health Administration. From this cohort, we identified patients with a contraindication to OAC after AF diagnoses, defined as incident intracranial bleeding, non-intracranial bleeding requiring hospitalization, or unrepaired cerebral aneurysm or aortic dissection. We used multivariate Cox proportional hazards to estimate the association of OAC prescription in the 90 days following OAC contraindication to ischemic stroke and rebleeding. Results: Among 167,190 patients with newly diagnosed AF (70 ± 11 years, 1.7% female, CHA2DS2-VASc 2.7 ± 1.7), 19,285 patients (11.5%) had an incident bleed (n = 18,342) or an unrepaired cerebral aneurysm or aortic dissection (n = 943). For OAC-contraindicated patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2 (N = 16,194), OAC was represcribed in 4075 patients (25%) and was associated with a higher risk of non-intracranial bleeding (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.37–1.61; p < 0.0001) but no difference in intracranial bleeding. There was a trend toward decreased stroke risk (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71–1.02; p 0.09). Conclusions: Development of contraindication to OAC after diagnosis of AF is common (11.5%), with most events requiring hospitalization. OAC reinitiation was associated with non-intracranial bleeding risk, with a trend toward reduced stroke risk. These data suggest that stroke prevention approaches after major bleeding events could be beneficial if bleeding risk can be successfully mitigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the version of this article originally published, the x axis labels in Fig. 1a were incorrect. The labels originally were 'Specificity,' but should have been '1 - Specificity.' Also, the x axis label in Fig. 2b was incorrect. It was originally 'DNN predicted label,' but should have been 'Average cardiologist label.' The errors have been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of this article., Author(s): Awni Y. Hannun [sup.1] , Pranav Rajpurkar [sup.1] , Masoumeh Haghpanahi [sup.2] , Geoffrey H. Tison [sup.3] , Codie Bourn [sup.2] , Mintu P. Turakhia [sup.4] [sup.5] , Andrew [...]

Background: Improving adherence to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) is challenging, and simple text messaging reminders have not been effective.Methods: SmartADHERE was a randomized trial that tested a personalized digital and human direct oral anticoagulant adherence intervention compared to usual care. Eligibility required age ≥ 18, newly-prescribed (≤90 days) rivaroxaban for atrial fibrillation (AF), 1 of 4 at-risk criteria for nonadherence, and a smartphone. The intervention consisted of combination of a medication management smartphone app, daily app-based reminders, adaptive text messaging, and phone-based counseling for severe nonadherence. The primary outcome was the proportion of days covered by rivaroxaban (PDC) at 6 months. There were 25 U.S. sites, all cardiology and electrophysiology outpatient practices, activated for a target sample size of 378, but the study was terminated by the sponsor prior to reaching target enrollment.Results: There were 139 participants (age 65±9.6 years, 30% female, median CHA2DS2-VASc score 3 with IQR 2 to 4, mean total medication burden 7.7±4.4). DOAC adherence was high in both arms with no difference in the primary outcome (PDC 0.86±0.25 intervention vs 0.88±0.25 control, p=0.62) or in secondary outcomes including PDC ≥ 0.80 and medication persistence. Per protocol analyses had similar results. Because of the high overall PDC, the likelihood to answer the primary hypothesis was only 51% even if target enrollment were achieved. There were no study-related adverse events.Conclusions: The use of a centralized digital and human adherence intervention was feasible across multiple sites. Overall adherence was much higher than expected despite prescreening for at-risk individuals. SmartADHERE illustrates the challenges of trials of behavioral and technology interventions, where enrollment itself may lead to selection bias or treatment effects. Pragmatic study designs, such as cluster randomization or stepped-wedge implementation, should be considered to improve enrollment and generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This collaborative statement from the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology/Heart Rhythm Society/European Heart Rhythm Association/Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society describes the current status of mobile health ("mHealth") technologies in arrhythmia management. The range of digital medical tools and heart rhythm disorders that they may be applied to and clinical decisions that may be enabled are discussed. The facilitation of comorbidity and lifestyle management (increasingly recognized to play a role in heart rhythm disorders) and patient self‐management are novel aspects of mHealth. The promises of predictive analytics but also operational challenges in embedding mHealth into routine clinical care are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is suboptimal. The purposes of this study were to identify practice patterns and barriers among U.S. general internists and family physicians in regard to cardiovascular risk management, and examine the association between physician characteristics and cardiovascular risk management. Methods A case vignette survey focused on cardiovascular disease risk management was distributed to a random sample of 12,000 U.S. family physicians and general internists between November and December 2006. Results Responses from a total of 888 practicing primary care physicians who see 60 patients per week were used for analysis. In an asymptomatic patient at low risk for cardiovascular event, 28% of family physicians and 37% of general internists made guideline-based preventive choices for no antiplatelet therapy (p < .01). In a patient at high risk for cardiovascular event, 59% of family physicians and 56% of general internists identified the guideline-based goal for serum fasting LDL level (< 100 mg/dl). Guideline adherence was inversely related to years in practice and volume of patients seen. Cost of medications (87.7%), adherence to medications (74.1%), adequate time for counseling (55.7%), patient education tools (47.1%), knowledge and skills to recommend dietary changes (47.8%) and facilitate patient adherence (52.0%) were cited as significant barriers to CVD risk management. Conclusion Despite the benefits demonstrated for managing cardiovascular risks, gaps remain in primary care practitioners' management of risks according to guideline recommendations. Innovative educational approaches that address barriers may facilitate the implementation of guideline-based recommendations in CVD risk management.

Background: Antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) can be associated with both proarrhythmic and noncardiovascular toxicities. Practice guidelines recommend tailored AAD therapy for AF based on patient-specific characteristics, such as coronary artery disease and heart failure, to minimize adverse events. However, current prescription patterns for specific AADs and the degree to which these guidelines are followed in practice are unknown.Methods: Patients enrolled in the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry with a primary diagnosis of AF discharged on an AAD between January 2014 and November 2018 were included. We analyzed rates of prescription of each AAD in several subgroups including those without structural heart disease. We classified AAD use as guideline concordant or nonguideline concordant based on 6 criteria derived from the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Rhythm Society AF guidelines. Guideline concordance for amiodarone was not considered applicable, since its use is not specifically contraindicated in the guidelines for reasons such as structural heart disease or renal function. We analyzed guideline-concordant AAD use by specific patient and hospital characteristics, and regional and temporal trends.Results: Among 21 921 patients from 123 sites, the median age was 69 years, 46% female and 51% had paroxysmal AF. The most commonly prescribed AAD was amiodarone (38%). Sotalol (23.2%) and dofetilide (19.2%) were each more commonly prescribed than either flecainide (9.8%) or propafenone (4.8%). Overall guideline-concordant AAD prescription at discharge was 84%. Guideline-concordant AAD use by drug was as follows: dofetilide 93%, sotalol 66%, flecainide 68%, propafenone 48%, and dronedarone 80%. There was variability in rate of guideline-concordant AAD use by hospital and geographic region.Conclusions: Amiodarone remains the most commonly prescribed AAD for AF followed by sotalol and dofetilide. Rates of guideline-concordant AAD use were high, and there was significant variability by specific drugs, hospitals, and regions, highlighting opportunities for additional quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]