Search

BackgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) affects 8 to 10 million Americans, who face significantly elevated risks of both mortality and major limb events such as amputation. Unfortunately, PAD is relatively underdiagnosed, undertreated, and underresearched, leading to wide variations in treatment patterns and outcomes. Efforts to improve PAD care and outcomes have been hampered by persistent difficulties identifying patients with PAD for clinical and investigatory purposes. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop and validate a model-based algorithm to detect patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) using data from an electronic health record (EHR) system. MethodsAn initial query of the EHR in a large health system identified all patients with PAD-related diagnosis codes for any encounter during the study period. Clinical adjudication of PAD diagnosis was performed by chart review on a random subgroup. A binary logistic regression to predict PAD was built and validated using a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach in the adjudicated patients. The algorithm was then applied to the nonsampled records to further evaluate its performance. ResultsThe initial EHR data query using 406 diagnostic codes yielded 15,406 patients. Overall, 2500 patients were randomly selected for ground truth PAD status adjudication. In the end, 108 code flags remained after removing rarely- and never-used codes. We entered these code flags plus administrative encounter, imaging, procedure, and specialist flags into a LASSO model. The area under the curve for this model was 0.862. ConclusionsThe algorithm we constructed has two main advantages over other approaches to the identification of patients with PAD. First, it was derived from a broad population of patients with many different PAD manifestations and treatment pathways across a large health system. Second, our model does not rely on clinical notes and can be applied in situations in which only administrative billing data (eg, large administrative data sets) are available. A combination of diagnosis codes and administrative flags can accurately identify patients with PAD in large cohorts.

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

BackgroundThe appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy.MethodsUsing an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis.ResultsA total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]).ConclusionsIn this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

While conducting a set of large-scale multi-site pragmatic clinical trials involving high-impact public health issues such as end-stage renal disease, opioid use, and colorectal cancer, there were substantial changes to both policies and guidelines relevant to the trials. These external changes gave rise to unexpected challenges for the trials, including decisions regarding how to respond to new clinical practice guidelines, increased difficulty in implementing trial interventions, achieving separation between treatment groups, and differential responses across sites. In this article, we describe these challenges and the approaches used to address them. When deliberating appropriate action in the face of external changes during a pragmatic clinical trial, we recommend considering the well-being of the participants, clinical equipoise, and the strength and quality of the evidence associated with the change; involving those charged with data and safety monitoring; and where possible, planning for potential external changes as the trial is being designed. Any solution must balance the primary obligation to protect the well-being of participants with the secondary obligation to protect the integrity of the trial in order to gain meaningful answers to important public health questions.

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.

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.

Several in vitro and animal studies have showed that inflammatory markers play a role in bone remodeling and pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Additionally, some human longitudinal studies showed suggestive associations between elevated inflammatory markers and increased risk of nontraumatic fractures. We examined several inflammatory markers and multiple fracture types in a single study of older individuals with extensive follow-up. We assessed the association of four inflammatory markers with the risk of incident hip fractures among 5265 participants of the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) and a composite endpoint of incident fractures of the hip, pelvis, humerus, or proximal forearm in 4477 participants. Among CHS participants followed between 1992 and 2009, we observed 480 incident hip fractures during a median follow-up of 11 years. In the composite fracture analysis cohort of 4477 participants, we observed 711 fractures during a median follow-up of 7 years. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for hip fracture associated with doubling of IL-6 were HR 1.15 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.30) overall and HR 1.17 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.35) in women. We also observed a positive association between each unit increase in white blood cell (WBC) count and risk of hip fracture: HR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06) overall and HR 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20) in women. We observed no significant associations between any of the four inflammatory markers and a composite fracture endpoint. Our findings suggest that chronic inflammatory and immune processes may be related to higher rates of incident hip fractures. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

BackgroundThe clinical research enterprise is not producing the evidence decision makers arguably need in a timely and cost effective manner; research currently involves the use of labor-intensive parallel systems that are separate from clinical care. The emergence of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) poses a possible solution: these large-scale trials are embedded within routine clinical care and often involve cluster randomization of hospitals, clinics, primary care providers, etc. Interventions can be implemented by health system personnel through usual communication channels and quality improvement infrastructure, and data collected as part of routine clinical care. However, experience with these trials is nascent and best practices regarding design operational, analytic, and reporting methodologies are undeveloped.MethodsTo strengthen the national capacity to implement cost-effective, large-scale PCTs, the Common Fund of the National Institutes of Health created the Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (Collaboratory) to support the design, execution, and dissemination of a series of demonstration projects using a pragmatic research design.ResultsIn this article, we will describe the Collaboratory, highlight some of the challenges encountered and solutions developed thus far, and discuss remaining barriers and opportunities for large-scale evidence generation using PCTs.ConclusionA planning phase is critical, and even with careful planning, new challenges arise during execution; comparisons between arms can be complicated by unanticipated changes. Early and ongoing engagement with both health care system leaders and front-line clinicians is critical for success. There is also marked uncertainty when applying existing ethical and regulatory frameworks to PCTS, and using existing electronic health records for data capture adds complexity.

Importance: The US leads the world in bringing new medical products to market, but the ability to generate evidence to inform clinical practice in postmarket settings needs improvement. Although a diverse group of stakeholders is working to improve postmarket evidence generation, the role of private payers has been underappreciated. Observations: Payers are crucial allies in improving evidence generation because better data would better inform coverage decisions, their policies and practices influence the conduct of care and research, and their claims data are a source of real-world evidence used in medical product evaluation. In addition, payers have a stake in improving evidence generation because the kinds of evidence needed to inform health care and coverage decisions are often not available when a product enters the market and may not be generated without their involvement. Here, we describe several key steps payers could take to improve evidence generation, including participating in efforts to reduce administrative and financial barriers to the conduct of clinical trials, directly incentivizing evidence generation on high-priority questions by funding potential cost-saving trials, increasing engagement with the medical products industry on evidentiary needs for coverage decisions, and improving usability of claims data by reducing data lags and routinely recording unique device identifiers. Broad payer engagement with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations regarding evidence generation will ensure that the opportunities to participate in clinical research are extended to all communities and that evidence needed to inform care is generated in trials and surveillance systems that reflect the clinical reality across the US. Conclusions and Relevance: Increasing payer involvement in evidence generation can benefit all participants in the medical innovation ecosystem. The importance of payers in these efforts will continue to grow in response to imperatives to increase integration of care and research, engage a diverse set of communities in clinical research, and move toward alternative payment models. This Special Communication discusses the current clinical trials system, examines why payers should support evidence generation, and suggests potential avenues for collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diabetes mellitus, heart failure (HF), and chronic kidney disease are common comorbidities, but overall use and safety of antihyperglycemic medications (AHMs) among patients with these comorbidities are poorly understood. Using Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure and linked Medicare Part D data, we assessed AHM use within 90 days of hospital discharge among HF patients with diabetes mellitus discharged from Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure hospitals between January 1, 2006, and October 1, 2011. We further summarized use by renal function and assessed renal contraindicated AHM use for patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate

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.

BackgroundPatients hospitalized with acute heart failure may experience worsening symptoms requiring escalation of therapy. In-hospital worsening heart failure is associated with worse in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes, but associations between the timing of worsening heart failure and outcomes are unknown.MethodsUsing data from a large clinical registry linked to Medicare claims, we examined characteristics, outcomes, and costs of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. We defined in-hospital worsening heart failure by the use of inotropes or intravenous vasodilators or initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodialysis, or ventilation. The study groups were early worsening heart failure (n = 1,990), late worsening heart failure (n = 4,223), complicated presentation (n = 15,361), and uncomplicated hospital course (n = 41,334).ResultsAmong 62,908 patients, those with late in-hospital worsening heart failure had higher in-hospital and postdischarge mortality than patients with early worsening heart failure or complicated presentation. Those with early or late worsening heart failure had more frequent all-cause and heart failure readmissions at 30 days and 1 year, with resultant higher costs, compared with patients with an uncomplicated hospital course.ConclusionAlthough late worsening heart failure was associated with the highest mortality, both early and late worsening heart failures were associated with more frequent readmissions and higher health care costs compared to uncomplicated hospital course. Prevention of worsening heart failure may be an important focus in the care of hospitalized patients with acute heart failure.

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.

BackgroundSudden cardiac death is the leading cause of death among end-stage kidney disease patients (ESKD) on dialysis, but the benefit of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in this population is uncertain. We conducted this investigation to compare the mortality of dialysis patients receiving a primary prevention ICD with matched controls.MethodsWe used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's ICD Registry to select dialysis patients who received a primary prevention ICD, and the Get with the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry to select a comparator cohort. We matched ICD recipients and no-ICD patients using propensity score techniques to reduce confounding, and overall survival was compared between groups.ResultsWe identified 108 dialysis patients receiving primary prevention ICDs and 195 comparable dialysis patients without ICDs. One year (3-year) mortality was 42.2% (68.8%) in the ICD registry cohort compared with 38.1% (75.7%) in the control cohort. There was no significant survival advantage associated with ICD [hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.13, log-rank P = 0.29]. After propensity matching, our analysis included 86 ICD patients and 86 matched controls. Comparing the propensity-matched cohorts, 1 year (3 years) mortality was 43.4% (74.0%) in the ICD cohort and 39.7% (76.6%) in the control cohort; there was no significant difference in mortality outcome between groups (HR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.67-1.31, log-rank P = 0.71).ConclusionsWe did not observe a significant association between primary prevention ICDs and reduced mortality among ESKD patients receiving dialysis. Consideration of the potential risks and benefits of ICD implantation in these patients should be undertaken while awaiting the results of definitive clinical trials.

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.

Hospitalization for heart failure (HF) is frequently related to dyspnea, yet associations among dyspnea severity, outcomes, and health care costs are unknown. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients hospitalized for acute HF by dyspnea severity and to examine associations among dyspnea severity, outcomes, and costs. Registry data for patients hospitalized for HF were linked with Medicare claims to evaluate dyspnea and outcomes in patients ≥65 years of age. We classified patients by patient-reported dyspnea severity at admission. Outcomes included length of stay, mortality 30 days after admission, days alive and out of the hospital, readmission, and Medicare payments 30 days after discharge. Of 48,616 patients with acute HF and dyspnea, 4,022 (8.3%) had dyspnea with moderate activity, 19,619 (40.3%) with minimal activity, and 24,975 (51.4%) at rest. Patients with dyspnea with minimal activity or at rest had greater co-morbidities, including renal insufficiency. Greater severity of baseline dyspnea was associated with mortality (moderate activity, 6.3%; minimal activity, 7.6%; at rest, 11.6%) and HF readmission (7.2%, 9.0%, and 9.4%). After multivariate adjustment, dyspnea at rest was associated with greater 30-day mortality and HF readmission, fewer days alive and out of the hospital, longer length of stay, and higher Medicare payments compared with dyspnea with moderate activity. In conclusion, dyspnea at rest on presentation was associated with greater mortality, readmission, length of stay, and health care costs in patients hospitalized with acute HF.

BackgroundCardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces morbidity and mortality among selected patients with heart failure in clinical trials. The effectiveness of this therapy in clinical practice has not been well studied.Methods and resultsWe compared a cohort of 4471 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Registry hospitalized primarily for heart failure and who received CRT-D between April 1, 2006, and December 31, 2009, to a historical control cohort of 4888 patients with heart failure without CRT-D from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry (ADHERE) hospitalized between January 1, 2002, and March 31, 2006. Both registries were linked with Medicare claims to evaluate longitudinal outcomes. We included patients from the ICD Registry with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and QRS duration ≥120 ms who were admitted for heart failure. We used Cox proportional hazards models to compare outcomes with and without CRT-D after adjustment for important covariates. After multivariable adjustment, CRT-D was associated with lower 3-year risks of death (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.56; P

A subset of patients hospitalized with acute heart failure experiences worsening clinical status and requires escalation of therapy. Worsening heart failure is an end point in many clinical trials, but little is known about its prevalence in clinical practice and its associated outcomes. We analyzed inpatient data from the Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry linked to Medicare claims to examine the prevalence and outcomes of patients with worsening heart failure, defined as the need for escalation of therapy at least 12 hours after hospital presentation. We compared patients with worsening heart failure to patients with an uncomplicated hospital course and patients with a complicated presentation. Of 63 727 patients hospitalized with acute heart failure, 11% developed worsening heart failure. These patients had the highest observed rates of mortality, all-cause readmission, and Medicare payments at 30 days and 1 year after hospitalization (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The adjusted hazards of 30-day mortality were 2.56 (99% CI, 2.34 to 2.80) compared with an uncomplicated course and 1.29 (99% CI, 1.17 to 1.42) compared with a complicated presentation. The adjusted cost ratios for postdischarge Medicare payments at 30 days were 1.35 (99% CI, 1.24 to 1.46) compared with an uncomplicated course and 1.11 (99% CI, 1.02 to 1.22) compared with a complicated presentation. In-hospital worsening heart failure was common and was associated with higher rates of mortality, all-cause readmission, and postdischarge Medicare payments. Prevention and treatment of in-hospital worsening heart failure represents an important goal for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure.

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

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.

Several years ago, the US News and World Report changed their risk-adjustment methodology, now relying almost exclusively on chronic conditions for risk adjustment. The impacts of adding selected acute conditions like pneumonia, sepsis, and electrolyte disorders ("augmented") to their current risk models ("base") for 4 specialties--cardiology, neurology, oncology, and pulmonology--on estimates of hospital performance are reported here. In the augmented models, many acute conditions were associated with substantial risks of mortality. Compared to the base models, the discrimination and calibration of the augmented models for all specialties were improved. While estimated hospital performance was highly correlated between the 2 models, the inclusion of acute conditions in risk-adjustment models meaningfully improved the predictive ability of those models and had noticeable effects on hospital performance estimates. Measures or conditions that address disease severity should always be included when risk-adjusting hospitalization outcomes, especially if the goal is provider profiling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundEffective warfarin thromboprophylaxis requires maintaining anticoagulation within the recommended international normalized ratio (INR) range. INR testing rates and associations between testing and outcomes are not well understood.HypothesisINR testing rates after hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure are suboptimal, and testing is associated with lower risks of mortality and adverse clinical events.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who were long-term warfarin users and were hospitalized for heart failure, had a medical history of atrial fibrillation or valvular heart disease, and were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. INR testing was defined as ≥1 outpatient INR test within 45 days after discharge. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we examined associations between testing and all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and adverse clinical events at 1 year.ResultsAmong 8558 patients, 7722 (90.2%) were tested. After 1 year, tested patients had lower all-cause mortality (23.5% vs 32.6%; P