Abstract Objectives Modifications in reimbursement rates by Medicare in 2008 have led to peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) being performed more commonly in outpatient and office-based clinics. ...The objective of this study was to determine the effects of this shift in clinical care setting on clinical outcomes after PVI. Background Modifications in reimbursement have led to peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) being more commonly performed in outpatient hospital settings and office-based clinics. Methods Using a 100% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2012, we examined 30-day and 1-year rates of all-cause mortality, major lower extremity amputation, repeat revascularization, and all-cause hospitalization by clinical care location of index PVI. Results A total of 218,858 Medicare beneficiaries underwent an index PVI between 2010 and 2012. Index PVIs performed in inpatient settings were associated with higher 1-year rates of all-cause mortality (23.6% vs. 10.4% and 11.7%; p < 0.001), major lower extremity amputation (10.1% vs. 3.7% and 3.5%; p < 0.001), and all-cause repeat hospitalization (63.3% vs. 48.5% and 48.0%; p < 0.001), but lower rates of repeat revascularization (25.1% vs. 26.9% vs. 38.6%; p < 0.001) when compared with outpatient hospital settings and office-based clinics, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated in office-based clinics remained more likely than patients in inpatient hospital settings to require repeat revascularization within 1 year across all specialties. There was also a statistically significant interaction effect between location of index revascularization and geographic region on the occurrence of all-cause hospitalization, repeat revascularization, and lower extremity amputation. Conclusions Index PVI performed in office-based settings was associated with a higher hazard of repeat revascularization when compared with other settings. Differences in clinical outcomes across treatment settings and geographic regions suggest that inconsistent application of PVI may exist and highlights the need for studies to determine optimal delivery of PVI in clinical practice.
Background
Prior studies have demonstrated a link between the metabolic syndrome and increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. Whether the metabolic syndrome is associated with sudden cardiac death ...is uncertain.
Methods and Results
We characterized the relationship between sudden cardiac death and metabolic syndrome status among participants of the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study (1987–2012) free of prevalent coronary heart disease or heart failure. Among 13 168 participants, 357 (2.7%) sudden cardiac deaths occurred during a median follow‐up of 23.6 years. Participants with the metabolic syndrome (n=4444) had a higher cumulative incidence of sudden cardiac death than those without it (n=8724) (4.1% versus 2.3%, P<0.001). After adjustment for participant demographics and clinical factors other than components of the metabolic syndrome, the metabolic syndrome was independently associated with sudden cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.70, 95% confidence interval, 1.37–2.12, P<0.001). This relationship was not modified by sex (interaction P=0.10) or race (interaction P=0.62) and was mediated by the metabolic syndrome criteria components. The risk of sudden cardiac death varied according to the number of metabolic syndrome components (hazard ratio 1.31 per additional component of the metabolic syndrome, 95% confidence interval, 1.19–1.44, P<0.001). Of the 5 components, elevated blood pressure, impaired fasting glucose, and low high‐density lipoprotein were independently associated with sudden cardiac death.
Conclusions
We observed that the metabolic syndrome was associated with a significantly increased risk of sudden cardiac death irrespective of sex or race. The risk of sudden cardiac death was proportional to the number of metabolic syndrome components.
Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Treatment Guideline increased the number of primary prevention patients eligible for statin therapy, yet ...uptake of these guidelines has been modest. Little is known of how primary care provider ( PCP ) beliefs influence statin prescription. Methods and Results We surveyed 164 PCP s from a community-based North Carolina network in 2017 about statin therapy. We evaluated statin initiation among the PCP s' statin-eligible patients between 2014 and 2015 without a previous prescription. Seventy-two PCP s (43.9%) completed the survey. The median estimate of the relative risk reduction for high-intensity statins was 45% (interquartile range, 25%-50%). A minority of providers (27.8%) believed statins caused diabetes mellitus, and only 16.7% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most PCPs (97.2%) believed that statins cause myopathy, and 72.3% reported always/very often discussing this with patients. Most (77.7%) reported always/very often using the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk calculator, although many reported that in most cases other risk factors or patient preferences influenced prescribing (59.8% and 43.1%, respectively). Of 6172 statin-eligible patients, 22.3% received a prescription for a moderate- or high-intensity statin at follow-up. Providers reporting greater reliance on risk factors beyond atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk were less likely to prescribe statins. Conclusions Although beliefs and approaches to statin discussions vary among community PCP s, new prescription rates are low and minimally associated with those beliefs. These results highlight the complexity of increasing statin prescriptions for primary prevention and suggest that strategies to facilitate standardized discussions and to address external influences on patient beliefs warrant future study.
The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and variation in angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription among a real-world population with heart failure with reduced ...ejection fraction (HFrEF).
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFrEF in July 2015. Little is known about the early patterns of use of this novel therapy.
The study included patients discharged alive from hospitals in Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF), a registry of hospitalized patients with heart failure, between July 2015 and June 2016 who had documentation of whether ARNIs were prescribed at discharge. Patient and hospital characteristics were compared among patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) with and without ARNI prescription at discharge, excluding those with documented contraindications to ARNIs. To evaluate hospital variation, hospitals with at least 10 eligible hospitalizations during the study period were assessed.
Of 21,078 patients hospitalized with HFrEF during the study period, 495 (2.3%) were prescribed ARNIs at discharge. Patients prescribed ARNIs were younger (median age 65 years vs. 70 years; p < 0.001), had lower ejection fractions (median 23% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and had higher use of aldosterone antagonists (45% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) at discharge. At the 241 participating hospitals with 10 or more eligible admissions, 125 (52%) reported no discharge prescriptions of ARNIs.
Approximately 2.3% of patients hospitalized for HFrEF in a national registry were prescribed ARNI therapy in the first 12 months following Food and Drug Administration approval. Further study is needed to identify and overcome barriers to implementing new evidence into practice, such as ARNI use among eligible patients with HFrEF.
Abstract Objectives To assess the extent of immortal time bias in estimating the clinical effectiveness of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and the impact of methods of handling ...immortal time bias. Study Design and Setting Retrospective population-based cohort study of patients with heart failure in a national registry linked to Medicare claims (2003–2008). We compared three methods of handling immortal time bias, namely the Mantel–Byar (or time-dependent exposure assignment), the landmark, and the exclusion methods. Results Of the 5,226 study patients, 1,274 (24.4%) received ICD therapy. Total person-years in the Mantel–Byar method were 2,639, or 490 more than that in the exclusion method, reflecting potential immortal time in the study. The exclusion method yielded a hazard ratio of 0.71 (95% confidence interval CI: 0.63–0.80), which was 16% lower than the Mantel–Byar method (0.84; 95% CI: 0.75–0.95). The 120-day landmark method yielded similar results to those produced by the Mantel–Byar method (0.82; 95% CI: 0.72–0.95). Conclusions Immortal time bias was detected in the ICD clinical effectiveness study, which might have led to substantial bias overestimating the treatment effect if handled by exclusion. When an appropriate landmark was selected, that method yielded similar hazard ratios to those obtained by the Mantel–Byar method, supporting the validity of the landmark method.
Highlights • Use of heart failure medical therapies is poorly characterized after LVAD implantation. • In this analysis of a large, multicenter LVAD registry, we found that use of neurohormonal ...antagonists was low after LVAD implant but that use of loop diuretics and amiodarone remained high. • Future studies should examine associations of heart failure medication use post-LVAD implant in terms of mortality, readmission, and quality of life so that optimal medical therapy can be better understood in this population.
PAD increases the risk of cardiovascular mortality and limb loss, and disparities in treatment and outcomes have been described. However, the association of patient-specific characteristics with ...variation in outcomes is less well known.
Patients with PAD from Duke University Health System (DUHS) between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 were identified. PAD status was confirmed through ground truth adjudication and predictive modeling using diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and other administrative data. Symptom severity, lower extremity imaging, and ankle-brachial index (ABI) were manually abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Data was linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to provide longitudinal follow up. Primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, lower extremity revascularization and amputation.
Of 1,768 patients with PAD, 31.6% were asymptomatic, 41.2% had intermittent claudication (IC), and 27.3% had chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). At 1 year, patients with CLTI had higher rates of MAVE compared with asymptomatic or IC patients. CLTI and Medicaid dual eligibility were independent predictors of mortality. CLTI and Black race were associated with amputation.
Rates of MAVE were highest in patients with CLTI, but patients with IC or asymptomatic disease also had high rates of adverse events. Black and Medicaid dual-eligible patients were disproportionately present in the CLTI subgroup and were at higher risk of amputation and mortality, respectively. Future studies must focus on early identification of high-risk patient groups to improve outcomes in patients with PAD.
IMPORTANCE Randomized clinical trials have shown that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy saves lives. Whether the survival of patients who received an ICD in primary prevention ...clinical trials differs from that of trial-eligible patients receiving a primary prevention ICD in clinical practice is unknown. OBJECTIVE To determine whether trial-eligible patients who received a primary prevention ICD as documented in a large national registry have a survival rate that differs from the survival rate of similar patients who received an ICD in the 2 largest primary prevention clinical trials, MADIT-II (n = 742) and SCD-HeFT (n = 829). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Retrospective analysis of data for patients enrolled in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, meeting the MADIT-II criteria (2464 propensity score–matched patients) or the SCD-HeFT criteria (3352 propensity score–matched patients). Mortality data for the registry patients were collected through December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare mortality from any cause. RESULTS The median follow-up time in MADIT-II, SCD-HeFT, and the ICD Registry was 19.5, 46.1, and 35.2 months, respectively. Compared with patients enrolled in the clinical trials, patients in the ICD Registry were significantly older and had a higher burden of comorbidities. In the matched cohorts, there was no significant difference in survival between MADIT-II–like patients in the registry and MADIT-II patients randomized to receive an ICD (2-year mortality rates: 13.9% and 15.6%, respectively; adjusted ICD Registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31; P = .62). Likewise, the survival among SCD-HeFT–like patients in the registry was not significantly different from survival among patients randomized to receive ICD therapy in SCD-HeFT (3-year mortality rates: 17.3% and 17.4%, respectively; adjusted registry vs trial hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.97-1.38; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE There was no significant difference in survival between clinical trial patients randomized to receive an ICD and a similar group of clinical registry patients who received a primary prevention ICD. Our findings support the continued use of primary prevention ICDs in similar patients seen in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000609
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.
PDF
