Search

Importance: A composite score for guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF) is associated with increased survival. Whether hospital performance according to a GDMT score is associated with a broader array of clinical outcomes at lower costs is unknown., Objectives: To evaluate hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge, 90-day risk-standardized clinical outcomes and costs, and associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2015 to September 2019. Included for analysis were patients hospitalized for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry, a national hospital-based quality improvement registry. Study data were analyzed from July 2022 to April 2023., Exposures: GDMT score at discharge., Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospital variability in GDMT score, a weighted index from 0 to 1 of GDMT prescribed divided by the number of medications eligible, at discharge was evaluated using a generalized linear mixed model using the hospital as a random effect and quantified with the adjusted median odds ratio (AMOR). Parallel analyses centering on 90-day mortality, HF rehospitalization, mortality or HF rehospitalization, home time, and costs were performed. Costs were assessed from the perspective of the Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services. Associations between hospital GDMT score and clinical outcomes and costs were evaluated using Spearman coefficients., Results: Among 41 161 patients (median [IQR] age, 78 [71-85] years; 25 546 male [62.1%]) across 360 hospitals, there was significant hospital variability in GDMT score at discharge (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26), clinical outcomes (mortality AMOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.14-1.24; HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.18-1.27; mortality or HF rehospitalization AMOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.18-1.26; home time AMOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.10) and costs (AMOR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.21-1.26). Higher hospital GDMT score was associated with lower hospital mortality (Spearman ρ, -0.22; 95% CI, -0.32 to -0.12; P < .001), lower mortality or HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.17; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.06; P = .002), more home time (Spearman ρ, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03-0.24; P = .01), and lower cost (Spearman ρ, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to 0; P = .047) but not with HF rehospitalization (Spearman ρ, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0; P = .06)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study reveal that hospital variability in GDMT score, clinical outcomes, and costs was significant. Higher GDMT score at discharge was associated with lower mortality, lower mortality or hospitalization, more home time, and lower cost. Efforts to increase health care value should include GDMT optimization.

Competing Interests: None.

Background: The use of recommended heart failure (HF) medications has improved over time, but opportunities for improvement persist among women and at rural hospitals., Objectives: This study aims to characterize national trends in performance in the use of guideline-recommended pharmacologic treatment for HF at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, at which medication copayments are modest., Methods: Among patients discharged from VA hospitals with HF between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, receipt of all guideline-recommended HF pharmacotherapy among eligible patients was assessed, consisting of evidence-based beta-blockers; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; and oral anticoagulation., Results: Of 55,560 patients at 122 hospitals, 32,304 (58.1%) received all guideline-recommended HF medications for which they were eligible. The proportion of patients receiving all recommended medications was higher in 2019 relative to 2013 (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.44-1.65). The median of hospital performance was 59.1% (Q1-Q3: 53.2%-66.2%), improving with substantial variation across sites from 2013 (median 56.4%; Q1-Q3: 50.0%-62.0%) to 2019 (median 65.7%; Q1-Q3: 56.3%-73.5%). Women were less likely to receive recommended therapies than men (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.96). Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive recommended therapies (aOR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79-0.87). Urban hospital location was associated with lower likelihood of medication receipt (aOR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.92)., Conclusions: Forty-two percent of patients did not receive all recommended HF medications at discharge, particularly women, minority patients, and those receiving care at urban hospitals. Rates of use increased over time, with variation in performance across hospitals., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was funded by VA Career Development Award HX002621 from the VA Health Services and Research Development Service and Career Development Award 19CDA347670126 from the American Heart Association. Dr Swat was funded by National Institutes of Health T32 training grant 5T32-HL-007822-22. The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aim: The "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 12, 2022, to November 3, 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through November 2022, during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables, where appropriate., Structure: Atrial fibrillation is the most sustained common arrhythmia, and its incidence and prevalence are increasing in the United States and globally. Recommendations from the "2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" and the "2019 AHA/ACC/HRS Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS Guideline for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic risk assessment, anticoagulation, left atrial appendage occlusion, atrial fibrillation catheter or surgical ablation, and risk factor modification and atrial fibrillation prevention have been developed.

Background: Among patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation, the frequency of off-label direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) dosing, associated factors, hospital-level variation, and temporal trends in contemporary practice are unknown., Methods: Using the Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation registry, patients admitted from January 1, 2014, to March 31, 2020, and discharged on DOACs were stratified according to receipt of underdosing, overdosing, or recommended dosing. Factors associated with off-label dosing (defined as underdosing or overdosing) were identified using logistic regression. Median odds ratio (OR) and time-series analyses were used to assess hospital-level variation and temporal trends, respectively., Results: Of 22 470 patients (70.1±12.1 years, 48.1% female, 82.5% White) prescribed a DOAC at discharge from hospitalization for atrial fibrillation (66% apixaban, 29% rivaroxaban, and 5% dabigatran), underdosing occurred among 2006 (8.9%), overdosing among 511 (2.3%), and recommended dosing among 19 953 (88.8%). The overall rate of off-label dosing was 11.2%. Patient-related factors associated with off-label dose included age (underdosing: OR, 1.06 per 1-year increase [95% CI, 1.06-1.07]; overdosing: OR, 1.07 per 1-year increase [95% CI, 1.06-1.09]), dialysis dependence (underdosing: OR, 5.50 [95% CI, 3.76-8.05]; overdosing: OR, 5.47 [95% CI, 2.74-10.88]), female sex (overdosing: OR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63-0.99]), and weight (overdosing: OR, 0.96 per 1-kg increase [95% CI, 0.95-1.00]). Across hospitals, the adjusted median OR for off-label DOAC dose was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.34-1.65; underdosing: OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.39-1.76]; overdosing: OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.20-1.84]), indicating significant hospital-level variation. Over the study period, recommended dosing significantly increased over time (81.9%-90.9%; P <0.0001 for trend) with a corresponding decline in underdosing (14.4%-6.6%; P <0.0001 for trend) and overdosing (3.8%-2.5%; P =0.001 for trend)., Conclusions: Over 1 in 10 patients hospitalized for atrial fibrillation are discharged on an off-label DOAC dose with significant variation across hospitals. While the proportion of patients receiving recommended dosing has significantly improved over time, opportunities to improve DOAC dosing persist., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Initiation of evidence-based medications for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) during hospitalization in contemporary practice is unknown., Objectives: This study characterized opportunities for and achievement of heart failure (HF) medication initiation., Methods: Using the GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure) Registry 2017-2020, which collected data on contraindications and prescribing for 7 evidence-based HF-related medications, we assessed the number of medications for which each patient with HFrEF was eligible, use before admission, and prescribed at discharge. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with medication initiation., Results: Among 50,170 patients from 160 sites, patients were eligible for mean number of 3.9 ± 1.1 evidence-based medications with 2.1 ± 1.3 used before admission and 3.0 ± 1.0 prescribed on discharge. The number of patients receiving all indicated medications increased from admission (14.9%) to discharge (32.8%), a mean net gain of 0.9 ± 1.3 medications over a mean of 5.6 ± 5.3 days. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with lower odds of HF medication initiation included older age, female sex, medical pre-existing conditions (stroke, peripheral arterial disease, pulmonary disease, and renal insufficiency), and rural location. Odds of medication initiation increased during the study period (adjusted OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.06-1.10)., Conclusions: Nearly 1 in 6 patients received all indicated HF-related medications on admission, increasing to 1 in 3 on discharge with an average of 1 new medication initiation. Opportunities to initiate evidence-based medications persist, particularly among women, those with comorbidities, and those receiving care at rural hospitals., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Swat has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) T32 Training Grant 5T32-HL-007822-22. The GWTG-HF (Get With The Guidelines–Heart Failure) program is provided by the American Heart Association. GWTG-HF is sponsored, in part, by Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Tylenol, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. Dr Allen has received grant funding from American Heart Association (AHA), NIH, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); and has received consulting fees from Abbott, ACI Clinical, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, and Novartis. Dr Greene has received research support from the Duke University Department of Medicine Chair’s Research Award, American Heart Association, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; has served on advisory boards for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Roche Diagnostics, and Sanofi; has received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and has served as a consultant for Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, PharmaIN, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Urovant Pharmaceuticals, and Vifor. Dr DeVore has received research funding through his institution from the American Heart Association, Amgen, Biofourmis, Bodyport, Cytokinetics, American Regent Inc, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), and Novartis; he has also provided consulting services for and/or received honoraria from Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cardionomic, InnaMed, LivaNova, Natera, Novartis, Procyrion, Story Health, Vifor, and Zoll; he has also received nonfinancial support from Abbott for educational and research activities. Dr Peterson is supported by the NHLBI of the NIH under Award Number R33HL143324. Dr Fonarow has consulted for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis. Dr Hess is supported by VA Career Development Award HX002621 and American Heart Association Career Development Award 19CDA34760126. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Left atrial appendage occlusion is an important alternative to anticoagulation in select patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Trends in real-world device sizing and associated short-term complications have not been characterized., Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion (NCDR LAAO) Registry, patients who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion with a Watchman 2.5 device from January 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020, were identified. Patients were stratified by device size based on left atrial appendage orifice size, and categorized as receiving a device that was undersized, oversized, or per manufacturer recommendation. Relationships between device sizing and short-term outcomes, including pericardial effusion, device embolism, and significant leak, were assessed., Results: Of the 68 456 patients, 6539 (10.5%) of patients received undersized devices, 17 791 (26.0%) according to manufacturer recommendations, and 44 126 (64.4%) received an oversized device. The 27-mm device was most commonly deployed [21 736 (31.8%)], whereas the smallest and largest devices (21 and 33 mm) were least commonly deployed [7695 (11.2%) and 9077 (13.3%), respectively]. Compared with manufacturer recommended sizing, there was no difference in the odds of pericardial effusion for either undersized (1.048 [95% CI' 0.801-1.372]; P= 0.733) or oversized (1.101 [95% CI' 0.933-1.298]; P= 0.254) devices. Similarly, relative to manufacturer recommended sizing, the odds of a composite adverse outcome of device migration or embolization and significant peridevice leak at 45 days were similar among undersized devices (1.030 [95% CI' 0.735-1.444]; P= 0.863) and favorable for oversized devices (0.701 [95% CI' 0.561-0.876]; P= 0.002) devices, primarily driven by lower odds of leak. Selection of oversized devices increased significantly over the study period (from 60.3% in 2016 to 66.0% in 2020; P <0.001)., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion with the first-generation Watchman device, receipt of oversized devices was common and increased over time. The high prevalence of oversizing was associated with lower odds of significant leak or device embolization without increased odds of other adverse events.

Importance: Up to 60% of patients in the US receive a stress test within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), prompting concerns about the possible overuse of stress testing., Objective: To examine the proportion of patients who underwent stress testing within 2 years of elective PCI, proportion of patients who had symptoms that were consistent with coronary artery disease (CAD), timing of stress testing, and site-level variation in stress testing among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used administrative claims data and clinical records from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking program. Patients who underwent stress testing within 2 years of elective PCI for stable CAD between November 1, 2013, and October 31, 2015, at 64 VA facilities were included in the analysis. Patients who received stress testing for staging purposes, cardiac rehabilitation evaluation, or preoperative testing before high-risk surgery were excluded. Data were analyzed from June to December 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the proportion of patients who underwent stress testing and had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD, using definitions from the 2013 clinical practice guideline (Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease). Secondary outcomes were the timing of stress testing (assessed using a cumulative incidence curve) and site-level variation in stress testing (assessed using multilevel logistic regression models)., Results: A total of 3705 consecutive patients (mean [SD] age 66.3 [7.6] years; 3656 men [98.7%]; 437 Black individuals [11.8%], 3175 White individuals [85.7%], and 93 individuals [2.5%] of other races and ethnicities [Asian, Hispanic or Latinx, or unknown]) had elective PCI. Of these patients, 916 (24.7%) received a stress test within 2 years, among whom 730 (79.7%) had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD at the time of stress testing. Visual inspection of a cumulative incidence curve for stress testing showed no rapid increases in stress testing at 6 months or 1 year after PCI, which might coincide with routine clinical visits. The proportion of symptomatic patients who underwent stress testing at each VA site ranged from 67.7% to 100%, with no significant site-level variation in stress testing., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that most veterans who underwent stress testing within 2 years after elective PCI had symptoms that were consistent with obstructive CAD. Therefore, measuring low-value stress testing using only administrative claims data may overestimate its prevalence, and concerns about overuse of post-PCI stress testing may be overstated.