Search

Housing instability is a key social determinant of health and has been linked to adverse short- and long-term health. Eviction reflects a severe form of housing instability and disproportionately affects minority and women residents in the USA; however, its relationship with mortality has not previously been described.To evaluate the independent association of county-level eviction rates with all-cause mortality in the USA after adjustment for county demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics.Cross-sectional.Six hundred eighty-six US counties with available 2016 county-level eviction and mortality data.2016 US county-level eviction rate.2016 US county-level age-adjusted all-cause mortality.Among 686 counties (66.1 million residents, 50.5% [49.7-51.2] women, 2% [0.5-11.1] Black race) with available eviction and mortality data in 2016, we observed a significant and graded relationship between county-level eviction rate and all-cause mortality. Counties in the highest eviction tertile demonstrated a greater proportion of residents of Black race and women and a higher prevalence of poverty and comorbid health conditions. After adjustment for county-level sociodemographic traits and prevalent comorbid health conditions, age-adjusted all-cause mortality was highest among counties in the highest eviction tertile (Tertile 3 vs 1 (per 100,000 people) 33.57: 95% CI: 10.5-56.6 p=.004). Consistent results were observed in continuous analysis of eviction, with all-cause mortality increasing by 9.32 deaths per 100,000 people (4.77, 13.89, p.0001) for every 1% increase in eviction rates. Significant interaction in the relationship between eviction and all-cause mortality was observed by the proportion of Black and women residents.In this cross-sectional analysis, county-level eviction rates were significantly associated with all-cause mortality with the strongest effects observed among counties with the highest proportion of Black and women residents. State and federal protections from evictions may help to reduce the health consequences of housing instability and address disparities in health outcomes.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has evolved through multiple phases characterized by new viral variants, vaccine development, and changes in therapies. It is unknown whether rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor profiles and complications have changed over time. Methods: We analyzed the American Heart Association COVID-19 CVD registry, a national multicenter registry of hospitalized adults with active COVID-19 infection. The time period from April 2020 to December 2021 was divided into 3-month epochs, with March 2020 analyzed separately as a potential outlier. Participating centers varied over the study period. Trends in all-cause in-hospital mortality, CVD risk factors, and in-hospital CVD outcomes, including a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, new heart failure, stroke, and myocardial infarction, were evaluated across time epochs. Risk-adjusted analyses were performed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Results: A total of 46 007 patient admissions from 134 hospitals were included (mean patient age 61.8 years, 53% male, 22% Black race). Patients admitted later in the pandemic were younger, more likely obese, and less likely to have existing CVD ( P trend ≤0.001 for each). The incidence of the primary outcome increased from 7.0% in March 2020 to 9.8% in October to December 2021 (risk-adjusted P trend =0.006). This was driven by an increase in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction and stroke ( P trend P trend P trend =0.63). Conclusions: Despite a shifting risk factor profile toward a younger population with lower rates of established CVD, the incidence of diagnosed cardiovascular complications of COVID increased from the onset of the pandemic through December 2021. All-cause mortality decreased during the initial months of the pandemic and thereafter remained consistently high through December 2021.

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) “Standards of Care in Diabetes” includes the ADA’s current clinical practice recommendations and is intended to provide the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals and guidelines, and tools to evaluate quality of care. Members of the ADA Professional Practice Committee, a multidisciplinary expert committee, are responsible for updating the Standards of Care annually, or more frequently as warranted. For a detailed description of ADA standards, statements, and reports, as well as the evidence-grading system for ADA’s clinical practice recommendations and a full list of Professional Practice Committee members, please refer to Introduction and Methodology. Readers who wish to comment on the Standards of Care are invited to do so at professional.diabetes.org/SOC.

Background: Racial disparities in heart failure hospitalization and mortality are well established; however, the association between different social determinants of health (SDOH) and length of stay (LOS) and the extent to which this association may differ across racial groups is not well established. Methods: We utilized data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry to evaluate the association between SDOH, as determined by patients’ residential ZIP Code and LOS among patients hospitalized with heart failure. We also assessed the race-specific contribution of the ZIP Code–level SDOH to LOS in patients of Black and non-Black races. Finally, we evaluated SDOH predictors of racial differences in LOS at the hospital level. Results: Among 301 500 patients (20.2% Black race), the median LOS was 4 days. In adjusted analysis accounting for patient-level and hospital-level factors, SDOH parameters of education, income, housing instability, and foreign-born were significantly associated with LOS after adjusting for clinical status and hospital-level factors. SDOH parameters accounted for 25.8% of the total attributable risk for prolonged LOS among Black patients compared with 10.1% in patients of non-Black race. Finally, hospitals with disproportionately longer LOS for Black versus non-Black patients were more likely to care for disadvantaged patients living in ZIP Codes with a higher percentage of foreign-born and non-English speaking areas. Conclusions: ZIP Code–level SDOH markers can identify patients at risk for prolonged LOS, and the effects of SDOH parameters are significantly greater among Black adults with heart failure as compared with non-Black adults.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed longstanding racial and ethnic inequities in health risks and outcomes in the United States. We aimed to identify racial and ethnic differences in presentation and outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: The American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry is a retrospective observational registry capturing consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We present data on the first 7868 patients by race/ethnicity treated at 88 hospitals across the United States between January 17, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure) and COVID-19 cardiorespiratory ordinal severity score (worst to best: death, cardiac arrest, mechanical ventilation with mechanical circulatory support, mechanical ventilation with vasopressors/inotrope support, mechanical ventilation without hemodynamic support, and hospitalization alone. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and each outcome adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and presentation features, and accounting for clustering by hospital. Results: Among 7868 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 33.0% were Hispanic, 25.5% were non-Hispanic Black, 6.3% were Asian, and 35.2% were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic and Black patients were younger than non-Hispanic White and Asian patients and were more likely to be uninsured. Black patients had the highest prevalence of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Black patients also had the highest rates of mechanical ventilation (23.2%) and renal replacement therapy (6.6%) but the lowest rates of remdesivir use (6.1%). Overall mortality was 18.4% with 53% of all deaths occurring in Black and Hispanic patients. The adjusted odds ratios for mortality were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76–1.14) for Black patients, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.73–1.11) for Hispanic patients, and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.96–1.80) for Asian patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients. The median odds ratio across hospitals was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.74–2.48). Results were similar for major adverse cardiovascular events. Asian patients had the highest COVID-19 cardiorespiratory severity at presentation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.16–1.90]). Conclusions: Although in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ by race/ethnicity after adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients bore a greater burden of mortality and morbidity because of their disproportionate representation among COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Introduction: Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) is a class I guideline indication after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Our population is high-risk for low medication adherence. With a multidisciplinary team we developed a telephone-based intervention to improve DAPT adherence post-PCI. Methods: Patients undergoing PCI at our center were contacted by nursing staff via telephone at 1 week, 30 days, and 60 days post-procedure. Calls included a reminder of the importance of DAPT and elicited any patient concerns. Concerns were relayed to the team who could take appropriate action. For patients filling their medications at any pharmacies within our closed system the proportion of days covered (PDC) was calculated. These were compared to data for patients undergoing PCI in the seven months prior to program initiation. Information on interventions performed as a result of calls was also collected. Results: During the study period, 452 patients underwent PCI. Of these, 70% were contacted and 244 filled their prescription at our system pharmacies. Twelve-month median PDC was 74%, with 45% of patients having PDC >80%. There was no significant difference when compared to the group prior to the intervention, median PDC 79% and 50% of patients having PDC >80%. In 26 patients calls led to interventions, removing barriers that would have otherwise prevented continued adherence. Conclusion: A telephone-based reminder system led to directed interventions in nearly 1 in 10 patients contacted. It was not able to significantly improve PDC when compared to a contemporary sample. This highlights the difficulty in using PDC to detect barriers to adherence.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 has been reported and associated with poor clinical outcomes. We aimed to understand the incidence of and outcomes associated with new-onset AF in a diverse and representative US cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: We used data from the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry. Patients were stratified by the presence versus absence of new-onset AF. The primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, and heart failure). The association of new-onset AF and the primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional-hazards models for the primary time to event analyses. Results: Of the first 30 999 patients from 120 institutions across the United States hospitalized with COVID-19, 27 851 had no history of AF. One thousand five hundred seventeen (5.4%) developed new-onset AF during their index hospitalization. New-onset AF was associated with higher rates of death (45.2% versus 11.9%) and MACE (23.8% versus 6.5%). The unadjusted hazard ratio for mortality was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.81–2.18) and for MACE was 2.23 (95% CI, 1.98–2.53) for patients with versus without new-onset AF. After adjusting for demographics, clinical comorbidities, and severity of disease, the associations with death (hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.99–1.23]) fully attenuated and MACE (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.14–1.50]) partially attenuated. Conclusions: New-onset AF was common (5.4%) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Almost half of patients with new-onset AF died during their index hospitalization. After multivariable adjustment for comorbidities and disease severity, new-onset AF was not statistically significantly associated with death, suggesting that new-onset AF in these patients may primarily be a marker of other adverse clinical factors rather than an independent driver of mortality. Causality between the MACE composites and AF needs to be further evaluated.

Ty J. Gluckman, MD, FACC, Chair Niti R. Aggarwal, MD, FACC Nicole M. Bhave, MD, FACC Gregory J. Dehmer, MD, MACC Olivia N. Gilbert, MD, MSc, FACC Chayakrit Krittanawong, MD Dharam J. Kumbhani, MD, SM, FACC Andrea L. Price, CPHQ, RCIS, AACC Javier A. Sala-Mercado, MD, PhD David E.

Introduction: Direct oral anticoagulants (DoACs) are increasingly used off-label for the treatment of left ventricular (LV) thrombus due to ease of use. Current efficacy and safety data are mixed. DoACs offer advantages in low resource populations and have not been studied in this context. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of DOACs for the treatment of LV thrombus in a medically underserved population. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients treated with DoACs for LV thrombus from January 2017 to February 2020 in a medically underserved, multi-ethnic population receiving care at a large county hospital. Baseline demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic data were collected. Adverse events were obtained via chart review. AE were categorized into fatal bleeding, intracerebral hemorrhage and non-hemorrhagic stroke documented on CT or MRI, bleeding event requiring transfusion, myocardial infarction, and death. Results: Forty patients were identified. Average age was 52 ± 11 years, 19 (48%) were African American and 12 (30%) were women. At thrombus diagnosis, 19 (48%) initiated rivaroxaban. 21 started warfarin then transitioned to rivaroxaban (17, 43%) or apixaban (4, 10%). Average LV ejection fraction at diagnosis was 23 ± 13 % and average treatment length was 16 ± 10 months. Twenty-two (76%) of 29 follow up echoes showed thrombus resolution. Four patients were lost to follow up. Adverse events included 2 non-hemorrhagic strokes and 3 deaths. Conclusion: This is the largest single center retrospective study of LV thrombi at a publicly funded, county hospital caring for a diverse, medically underserved patient population. For this patient population treated with DoACs, successful resolution of LV thrombi occurred in most patients with few adverse events. These results underscore the need for randomized trials to understand the efficacy and safety of DOACs for the treatment of LV thrombus, particularly in underserved communities.

Introduction: Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) has been increasingly recognized. The differences between MINOCA and obstructive coronary artery disease (OCAD) patients have not been studied in lower socioeconomic status populations. Methods: The records of all patients undergoing angiography for ACS at a large Dallas County safety-net hospital from January 2018 to January 2020 were reviewed and categorized as MINOCA or OCAD. Results: During the study period, 592 cases of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were identified; 10.8% (n=64) were MINOCA. OCAD patients had higher peak pre-angiography troponin compared with MINOCA patients (2498 vs 335 ng/L, p Conclusions: In this analysis of ACS patients presenting to a large safety-net hospital, MINOCA was common and MINOCA patients had many traditional risk factors. Men presented with MINOCA more commonly than has been seen in other studies. More Black patients presenting with ACS had MINOCA vs OCAD, likely reflecting the higher rates of left ventricular hypertrophy and diabetes in these patients. Lack of a definitive diagnosis for most MINOCA patients may reflect unfamiliarity with the diagnostic workup of MINOCA patients.

Background Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and heart failure (HF) are increasing in prevalence. The independent association between NAFLD and downstream risk of HF and HF subtypes (HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction) is not well established. Methods and Results This was a retrospective, cohort study among Medicare beneficiaries. We selected Medicare beneficiaries without known prior diagnosis of HF. NAFLD was defined using presence of 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐9‐CM ), claims codes. Incident HF was defined using at least 1 inpatient or at least 2 outpatient HF claims during the follow‐up period (October 2015–December 2016). Among 870 535 Medicare patients, 3.2% (N=27 919) had a clinical diagnosis of NAFLD. Patients with NAFLD were more commonly women, were less commonly Black patients, and had a higher burden of comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, and kidney disease. Over a mean 14.3 months of follow‐up, patients with (versus without) baseline NAFLD had a significantly higher risk of new‐onset HF in unadjusted (6.4% versus 5.0%; P Conclusions Patients with NAFLD are at an increased risk of incident HF, with a higher risk of developing HF with preserved ejection fraction versus HF with reduced ejection fraction. The persistence of an increased risk after adjustment for clinical and demographic factors suggests an epidemiological link between NAFLD and HF beyond the basis of shared risk factors that requires further investigation.

Background: Medication nonadherence presents one of the greatest challenges to hypertension management. Previous studies from our group have shown therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), biochemical monitoring of drug levels, is more accurate than self-report, detailed questionnaires, or prescription fill rate in detecting nonadherence. Prior studies have also shown a prevalence of nonadherence from 45% to 80% among insured patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite having been prescribed a multi-drug regimen. Previous studies have not assessed adherence to antihypertensive drugs in a safety net population by TDM. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in the primary care Internal Medicine and Cardiology Clinics at Parkland Health& Hospital System (PHHS). Patients with BP of 130/80 mmHg, prescribed ≥2 antihypertensive medications, and self-reporting medication adherence were enrolled after informed consent. Plasma samples were obtained for measurement of 44 cardiovascular drugs using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Results: Among 77 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (57% female, 65% Black, 12% Hispanic), 13 (17%) were nonadherent to at least one anti-hypertensive drug by TDM. There was no difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The adherent and nonadherent groups had similar systolic (146±13 vs 148±18, p=0.67) and diastolic (83±9 vs 88±10 mmHg, p=0.13) BP. All patients had either medical insurance or some form of prescription financial assistance. 15 patients had prescription financial assistance, while 62 patients had medical insurance. Nonadherence rates for patients on financial assistance programs did not significantly differ from patients with medical insurance (13% vs 18%, p>0.999). Conclusions: We found a surprisingly low prevalence of anti-hypertensive medication nonadherence in this uncontrolled hypertension population despite many barriers to treatment. Our study suggests a lesser role of medication nonadherence in uncontrolled hypertension in the safety net population.

There is little data describing trends in the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 following publication of randomized trials that failed to demonstrate a benefit of this therapy. We identified 13,957 patients admitted for active COVID-19 at 85 U.S. hospitals participating in a national registry between March 1 and August 31, 2020. The overall proportion of patients receiving hydroxychloroquine peaked at 55.2% in March and April and decreased to 4.8% in May and June and 0.8% in July and August. At the hospital-level, median use was 59.4% in March and April (IQR 48.5–71.5%, range 0–100%) and decreased to 0.3% (IQR 0–5.4%, range 0–100%) by May and June and 0% (IQR 0–1.3%, range 0–36.4%) by July and August. The rate and hospital-level uniformity in deimplementation of this ineffective therapy for COVID-19 reflects a rapid response to evolving clinical information and further study may offer strategies to inform deimplementation of ineffective clinical care.

Background: Medication nonadherence is associated with worse outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), a group who requires long-term therapy for secondary prevention. It is important to understand to what extent drug costs, which are potentially actionable factors, contribute to medication nonadherence. Methods: In a nationally representative survey of US adults in the National Health Interview Survey (2013–2017), we identified individuals ≥18 years with a reported history of ASCVD. Participants were considered to have experienced cost-related nonadherence (CRN) if in the preceding 12 months they reported skipping doses to save money, taking less medication to save money, or delaying filling a prescription to save money. We used survey analysis to obtain national estimates. Results: Of the 14 279 surveyed individuals with ASCVD, a weighted 12.6% (or 2.2 million [95% CI, 2.1–2.4]) experienced CRN, including 8.6% or 1.5 million missing doses, 8.8% or 1.6 million taking lower than prescribed doses, and 10.5% or 1.9 million intentionally delaying a medication fill to save costs. Age 1 in 5 reporting CRN in these subgroups. Survey respondents with CRN compared with those without CRN had 10.8-fold higher odds of requesting low-cost medications and 8.9-fold higher odds of using alternative, nonprescription, therapies. Conclusions: One in 8 patients with ASCVD reports nonadherence to medications because of cost. The removal of financial barriers to accessing medications, particularly among vulnerable patient groups, may help improve adherence to essential therapy to reduce ASCVD morbidity and mortality.

Context Patients with very severe hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride levels ≥2000 mg/dL; 22.6 mmol/L) require aggressive treatment. However, little research exists on the underlying etiologies and management of very severe hypertriglyceridemia. Objective We hypothesized (i) very severe hypertriglyceridemia in adults is mostly associated with secondary causes and (ii) most patients with very severe hypertriglyceridemia lack appropriate follow-up and treatment. Design We queried electronic medical records at Parkland Health and Hospital Systems for lipid measurements in the year 2016 and identified patients with serum triglyceride levels ≥2000 mg/dL (22.6 mmol/L). We extracted data on demographics, underlying causes, lipid-lowering therapy, and follow-up. Results One hundred sixty-four serum triglyceride measurements were ≥2000 mg/dL (22.6 mmol/L) in 103 unique patients. Of these, 60 patients were admitted to the hospital (39 for acute pancreatitis). Most were Hispanic (79%). The major conditions associated with very severe hypertriglyceridemia included uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (74%), heavy alcohol use (10%), medication use (7%), and hypothyroidism (2%). Two patients were known to have monogenic causes of hypertriglyceridemia. After the index measurement of triglycerides ≥2000 mg/dL (22.6 mmol/L), the use of triglyceride-lowering drugs increased, most prominently the use of fish oil supplements, which increased by 80%. However, in follow-up visits, hypertriglyceridemia was addressed in only 50% of encounters, and serum triglycerides were remeasured in only 18%. Conclusion In summary, very severe hypertriglyceridemia was quite prevalent (∼0.1% of all lipid measurements) in our large county health care system, especially in Hispanic men. Most cases were related to uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and follow-up monitoring was inadequate.

Highlights •Ticagrelor is a cornerstone of antithrombotic therapy after ACS, but its effectiveness is limited by nonadherence. •Premature ticagrelor discontinuation occurs in 25% of patients and is related to adverse events. •The most frequent adverse events of ticagrelor are bleeding and dyspnea. •Appropriate patient selection, early follow-up, patient education, and appropriate bleeding prophylaxis can mitigate ticagrelor nonadherence.

Background Emerging evidence links acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID‐19 with higher mortality and respiratory morbidity, but the relationship of AKI with cardiovascular disease outcomes has not been reported in this population. We sought to evaluate associations between chronic kidney disease (CKD), AKI, and mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19. Methods and Results In a large multicenter registry including 8574 patients with COVID‐19 from 88 US hospitals, data were collected on baseline characteristics and serial laboratory data during index hospitalization. Primary exposure variables were CKD (categorized as no CKD, CKD, and end‐stage kidney disease) and AKI (classified into no AKI or stages 1, 2, or 3 using a modification of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guideline definition). The primary outcome was all‐cause mortality. The key secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events, defined as cardiovascular death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, new‐onset nonfatal heart failure, and nonfatal cardiogenic shock. CKD and end‐stage kidney disease were not associated with mortality or major adverse cardiac events after multivariate adjustment. In contrast, AKI was significantly associated with mortality (stage 1 hazard ratio [HR], 1.72 [95% CI, 1.46–2.03]; stage 2 HR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.52–2.20]; stage 3 HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.44–1.98]; versus no AKI) and major adverse cardiac events (stage 1 HR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.74–2.71]; stage 2 HR, 2.70 [95% CI, 2.07–3.51]; stage 3 HR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.52–3.72]; versus no AKI). Conclusions This large study demonstrates a significant association between AKI and all‐cause mortality and, for the first time, major adverse cardiovascular events in patients hospitalized with COVID‐19.

Introduction: CV mortality has declined over 4 decades in the U.S. However, whether declines have been uniformly experienced across U.S. counties, and predictors of CV mortality trajectory are not known. Methods: County-level mortality data from 1980-2014 was obtained from the National Center for Health Statistics. We used a ClustMix approach to identify 3 distinct county phenogroups based on mortality trajectory. Adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to evaluate the associations between county-level characteristics (demographic, social, and health status) and CV mortality trajectory-based phenogroups. Results: Among 3,133 counties, there were parallel declines in CV mortality in all groups (Fig.1A). High-mortality counties were located in the South and parts of the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys (Fig. 1B). County phenogroups varied significantly in social characteristics such as non-white proportion (low vs. high mortality: 12% vs. 27%), high-school education (11% vs. 20%), and violent crime rates (.01 vs. 0.3/100 population). Disparities in health factors were also observed with higher rates of smoking, obesity, and diabetes in the high (vs. low) mortality groups. A substantial collinearity was observed between social and health factors. In adjusted analysis, social, environmental, and health characteristics explained 56% variance in the county-level CV mortality trajectory. Education status (OR [95% CI]=12.4 [9.4-16.3]), violent crime rates (OR [95% CI] =1.6 [1.3-1.9]), and smoking (OR [95% CI] = 3.9 [3.1- 4.9]) were the strongest predictors of high mortality trajectory phenogroup membership (ref: low mortality). Conclusions: Despite a decline in CV mortality, disparities at the county-level have persisted over the past 4 decades largely driven by differences in social characteristics and smoking prevalence. This highlights the need for multi-domain interventions focusing on safety, education and public health to improve county-level disparities in CV health.

Background: Out-of-pocket costs are a serious barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy. Understanding of these costs can lead to care oriented around the limits they generate. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education. Objective: To define a potential knowledge gap regarding costs experienced by patients by surveying Internal Medicine residents at our large academic institution. Methods: We surveyed Internal Medicine residents in spring 2019 about knowledge and practices surrounding patient out-of-pocket costs. Participants answered questions considering their most recent inpatient panel and their clinic patient panel. Familiarity was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and for the purposes of presentation, was divided into “Poor” and “Moderate or Better.” Non-parametric analysis was used to test differences between outpatients and inpatients and by year of training. Results: Of 159 residents, 109 (67%) responded. Familiarity with patient insurance status was moderate or better in 85%. Reported understanding of costs associated with medications, testing, and clinic visits was less common. Respondents had higher familiarity with out-of-pocket costs for clinic patients compared with inpatients. Knowledge of cost of care was not an often-considered factor in decision making. There was no significant difference in response by year of training. Conclusion: Patient out-of-pocket costs are an important dimension of patient care which Internal Medicine Trainees at our institution do not confidently understand or utilize. Improvements in education around this topic may enable more patient-centered care.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Background: Obesity may contribute to adverse outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, studies of large, broadly generalizable patient populations are lacking, and the effect of body mass index (BMI) on COVID-19 outcomes— particularly in younger adults—remains uncertain. Methods: We analyzed data from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 88 US hospitals enrolled in the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry with data collection through July 22, 2020. BMI was stratified by World Health Organization obesity class, with normal weight prespecified as the reference group. Results: Obesity, and, in particular, class III obesity, was overrepresented in the registry in comparison with the US population, with the largest differences among adults ≤50 years. Among 7606 patients, in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation occurred in 2109 (27.7%), in-hospital death in 1302 (17.1%), and mechanical ventilation in 1602 (21.1%). After multivariable adjustment, classes I to III obesity were associated with higher risks of in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09–1.51], 1.57 [1.29–1.91], 1.80 [1.47–2.20], respectively), and class III obesity was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital death (hazard ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.00–1.58]). Overweight and class I to III obese individuals were at higher risk for mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09–1.51], 1.54 [1.29–1.84], 1.88 [1.52–2.32], and 2.08 [1.68–2.58], respectively). Significant BMI by age interactions were seen for all primary end points ( P -interaction70 years. Severe obesity (BMI ≥40 kg/m 2 ) was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death only in those ≤50 years (hazard ratio, 1.36 [1.01–1.84]). In adjusted analyses, higher BMI was associated with dialysis initiation and with venous thromboembolism but not with major adverse cardiac events. Conclusions: Obese patients are more likely to be hospitalized with COVID-19, and are at higher risk of in-hospital death or mechanical ventilation, in particular, if young (age ≤50 years). Obese patients are also at higher risk for venous thromboembolism and dialysis. These observations support clear public health messaging and rigorous adherence to COVID-19 prevention strategies in all obese individuals regardless of age.

Background: The Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid eligibility allowing low-income individuals greater access to health care. However, the uptake of state Medicaid expansion has been variable. It remains unclear how the Medicaid expansion was associated with the temporal trends in use of evidence-based cardiovascular drugs. Methods: We used the publicly available Medicaid Drug Utilization and Current Population Survey to extract filled prescription rates per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries of statins, antihypertensives, P2Y12 inhibitors, and direct oral anticoagulants. We defined expander states as those who expanded Medicaid on or before January 1, 2014, and nonexpander states as those who had not expanded by December 31, 2018. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses were performed to compare the association of the Medicaid expansion with per-capita cardiovascular drug prescription rates in expander versus nonexpander states. Results: Between 2011 and 2018, the total number of prescriptions among all Medicaid beneficiaries increased, with gains of 89.7% in statins (11.0 to 20.8 million), 76% in antihypertensives (35.3 to 62.2 million), and 37% in P2Y12 inhibitors (1.7 to 2.3 million). Medicaid expansion was associated with significantly greater increases in quarterly prescriptions (per 1000 Medicaid beneficiaries) of statins (DID estimate [95% CI]: 22.5 [16.5–28.6], P P P 75% of the expander states had increases in prescription rates of both statins and antihypertensives. In contrast, 44% of nonexpander states saw declines in statins and antihypertensives. The Medicaid expansion was not associated with higher direct oral anticoagulants prescription rates (DID estimate [95% CI] 0.9 [−0.3 to 2.1], P =0.142). Conclusions: The 2014 Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant increase in per-capita utilization of cardiovascular prescription drugs among Medicaid beneficiaries. These gains in utilization may contribute to long-term cardiovascular benefits to lower-income and previously underinsured populations.

This national cohort study evaluates trends in heart failure incidence across risk factor strata, including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, acute myocardial infarction, and atrial fibrillation among Medicare beneficiaries., Key Points Question What are the trends in heart failure (HF) incidence across strata of risk factor burden? Findings In this national cohort study of 1 799 027 Medicare beneficiaries at risk for HF, the incidence of HF declined despite a concomitant increase in the prevalence of associated risk factors. This decline reflects a decrease in HF incidence among those with primary HF risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and obesity). Meaning Individuals with risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, had a temporal decline in HF incidence; however, the incidence of HF increased among those with prevalent predisposing cardiovascular conditions, highlighting a potential target population for further HF prevention., Importance Heart failure (HF) incidence is declining among Medicare beneficiaries. However, the epidemiological mechanisms underlying this decline are not well understood. Objective To evaluate trends in HF incidence across risk factor strata. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective, national cohort study of 5% of all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with no prior HF followed up from 2011 to 2016. The study examined annual trends in HF incidence among groups with and without primary HF risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, and obesity) and predisposing cardiovascular conditions (acute myocardial infarction [MI] and atrial fibrillation [AF]). Exposures The presence of comorbid HF risk factors including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, acute MI, and AF identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Main Outcomes and Measures Incident HF, defined using at least 1 inpatient HF claim or at least 2 outpatient HF claims among those without a previous diagnosis of HF. Results Of 1 799 027 unique Medicare beneficiaries at risk for HF (median age, 73 years [interquartile range, 68-79 years]; 56% female [805 060-796 253 participants during the study period]), 249 832 had a new diagnosis of HF. The prevalence of all 5 risk factors increased over time (0.8% mean increase in hypertension per year, 1.9% increase in diabetes, 2.9% increase in obesity, 0.2% increase in acute MI, and 0.4% increase in AF). Heart failure incidence declined from 35.7 cases per 1000 beneficiaries in 2011 to 26.5 cases per 1000 beneficiaries in 2016, consistent across subgroups based on sex and race/ethnicity. A greater decline in HF incidence was observed among patients with prevalent hypertension (relative excess decline, 12%), diabetes (relative excess decline, 3%), and obesity (relative excess decline, 16%) compared with those without corresponding risk factors. In contrast, there was a relative increase in HF incidence among individuals with acute MI (26% vs no acute MI) and AF (22% vs no AF). Conclusions and Relevance Findings of this study suggest that the temporal decline in HF incidence among Medicare beneficiaries reflects a decrease in HF incidence among those with primary HF risk factors. The increase in HF incidence among those with acute MI and those with AF highlights potential targets for future HF prevention strategies.

Importance Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)–lowering therapies are a cornerstone of prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. With the introduction of generic formulations and the release of new therapies, including proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, contemporary Medicare utilization of these therapies remains unknown. Objective To determine trends in utilization and spending on brand-name and generic LDL-C–lowering therapies and to estimate potential savings if all Medicare beneficiaries were switched to available therapeutically equivalent generic formulations. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study analyzed prescription drug utilization and cost trend data from the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Event data set from 2014 to 2018 for LDL-C–lowering therapies. A total of 11 LDL-C–lowering drugs with 25 formulations, including 16 brand-name and 9 generic formulations, were included. Data were collected and analyzed from October 2019 to June 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries, annual spending, and spending per beneficiary for all formulations. Results The total number of Medicare Part D beneficiaries ranged from 37 720 840 in 2014 to 44 249 461 in 2018. The number of Medicare beneficiaries taking LDL-C–lowering therapies increased by 23% (from 20.5 million in 2014 to 25.2 million in 2018), while the associated Medicare expenditure decreased by 46% (from $6.3 billion in 2014 to $3.3 billion in 2018). Lower expenditure was driven by greater uptake of generic statin and ezetimibe and a concurrent rapid decline in the use of their brand-name formulations. Medicare spent $9.6 billion on brand-name statins and ezetimibe and could have saved $2.1 billion and $0.4 billion, respectively, if brand-name formulations were switched to equivalent generic versions when available. The number of beneficiaries using PCSK9 inhibitors since their introduction in 2015 has been modest, although use has increased by 144% (from 25 569 in 2016 to 62 476 in 2018) and total spending has increased by 199% (from $164 million in 2016 to $491 million in 2018). Conclusions and Relevance Between 2014 and 2018, LDL-C–lowering therapies were used by 4.8 million more Medicare beneficiaries annually, with an associated $3.0 billion decline in Medicare spending. This cost reduction was driven by the rapid transition from brand-name formulations to lower-cost generic formulations of statins and ezetimibe. Use of PCSK9 inhibitions, although low, increased over time and could have broad implications on future Medicare spending.

Background: In response to the public health emergency created by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, American Heart Association volunteers and staff aimed to rapidly develop and launch a resource for the medical and research community to expedite scientific advancement through shared learning, quality improvement, and research. In Methods and Results: Participating hospitals are enrolling consecutive hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 disease, regardless of CVD status. This hospital quality improvement program will allow participating hospitals and health systems to evaluate patient-level data including mortality rates, intensive care unit bed days, and ventilator days from individual review of electronic medical records of sequential adult patients with active COVID-19 infection. Participating sites can leverage these data for onsite, rapid quality improvement, and benchmarking versus other institutions. After 9 weeks, >130 sites have enrolled in the program and >4000 records have been abstracted in the national dataset. Additionally, the aggregate dataset will be a valuable data resource for the medical research community. Conclusions: The AHA COVID-19 CVD Registry will support greater understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular disease and will inform best practices for evaluation and management of patients with COVID-19.

Background Professional society guidelines are emerging for cardiovascular care in cancer patients. However, it is not yet clear how effectively the cancer survivor population is screened and treated for cardiomyopathy in contemporary clinical practice. As electronic health records (EHRs) are now widely used in clinical practice, we tested the hypothesis that an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry can address these questions. Objective The aim of this study was to develop an EHR-based pragmatic cardio-oncology registry and, as proof of principle, to investigate care gaps in the cardiovascular care of cancer patients. Methods We generated a programmatically deidentified, real-time EHR-based cardio-oncology registry from all patients in our institutional Cancer Population Registry (N=8275, 2011-2017). We investigated: (1) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment before and after treatment with potentially cardiotoxic agents; and (2) guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), defined as LVEF Results Rapid development of an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry was feasible. Identification of tests and outcomes was similar using the EHR-based cardio-oncology registry and manual chart abstraction (100% sensitivity and 83% specificity for LVD). LVEF was documented prior to initiation of cancer therapy in 19.8% of patients. Prevalence of postchemotherapy LVD and HFrEF was relatively low (9.4% and 2.5%, respectively). Among patients with postchemotherapy LVD or HFrEF, those referred to cardiology had a significantly higher prescription rate of a GDMT. Conclusions EHR data can efficiently populate a real-time, pragmatic cardio-oncology registry as a byproduct of clinical care for health care delivery investigations.

BACKGROUND Professional society guidelines are emerging for cardiovascular care in cancer patients. However, it is not yet clear how effectively the cancer survivor population is screened and treated for cardiomyopathy in contemporary clinical practice. As electronic health records (EHRs) are now widely used in clinical practice, we tested the hypothesis that an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry can address these questions. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to develop an EHR-based pragmatic cardio-oncology registry and, as proof of principle, to investigate care gaps in the cardiovascular care of cancer patients. METHODS We generated a programmatically deidentified, real-time EHR-based cardio-oncology registry from all patients in our institutional Cancer Population Registry (N=8275, 2011-2017). We investigated: (1) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment before and after treatment with potentially cardiotoxic agents; and (2) guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), defined as LVEF RESULTS Rapid development of an EHR-based cardio-oncology registry was feasible. Identification of tests and outcomes was similar using the EHR-based cardio-oncology registry and manual chart abstraction (100% sensitivity and 83% specificity for LVD). LVEF was documented prior to initiation of cancer therapy in 19.8% of patients. Prevalence of postchemotherapy LVD and HFrEF was relatively low (9.4% and 2.5%, respectively). Among patients with postchemotherapy LVD or HFrEF, those referred to cardiology had a significantly higher prescription rate of a GDMT. CONCLUSIONS EHR data can efficiently populate a real-time, pragmatic cardio-oncology registry as a byproduct of clinical care for health care delivery investigations.

In spring 2018, the American Heart Association convened the Value in Healthcare Summit to begin an important conversation about the challenges patients with cardiovascular disease face in accessing and deriving quality and value from the healthcare system. Following the summit and recognizing the collective momentum it created, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the Robert J. Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University, launched the Value in Healthcare Initiative—Transforming Cardiovascular Care. Four areas of focus were identified, and learning collaboratives were established and proceeded to conduct concrete, actionable problem solving in 4 high-impact areas in cardiovascular care: Value-Based Models, Partnering with Regulators, Predict and Prevent, and Prior Authorization. The deliverables from these groups are being disseminated in 4 stand-alone articles, and their publication will initiate further work to test and evaluate each of these promising areas of reform. This article provides an overview of the initiative’s findings and highlights key cross-cutting themes for consideration as the initiative moves forward.

Background: Palliative use of continuous IV inotrope therapy has shown to improve quality of life and reduce hospital readmissions for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) who are otherwise ineligible to receive advanced therapies. Administration of home inotrope therapy generally requires a hospice or home-health agency, placing this option out of reach for patients who lack funding. As such, underinsured patients are relegated to the difficult choice of either remaining in the hospital to receive IV inotropes, or going home without the therapy for as long as their symptoms allow. To address this issue at our large county safety-net hospital, we developed and implemented a patient self-administered home inotrope therapy program. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and social workers was assembled to pilot the program. Eligible patients were provided with a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC) and a portable infusion pump. They were then instructed on proper use of the pump, medication administration, medication bag changes, and IV line care using a nursing teach-back technique. After proper understanding was demonstrated, patients were discharged home with weekly follow up in heart failure clinic for PICC-care and medication exchanges. Results: During the initial 12 months of the program, 5 patients were deemed eligible for enrollment. Total hospitalized days for these patients was 277 (mean = 55.4 days) in the one year prior to enrollment and 12 (mean = 2.4 days) while enrolled for a cumulative period of 288 days (Figure 1). One patient was able to secure funding for advanced therapies, two patients died while enrolled, and two patients are currently enrolled and alive. Discussion: A self-administered home IV inotrope therapy program is a feasible alternative for palliation in unfunded patients with end-stage HF who are otherwise not candidates for advanced therapies, allowing for more days at home in the end of life. Thus far, the cost impact of the program has been mitigated by the cost savings for inpatient hospitalizations. Studies to assess patient-centered outcomes, and overall cost savings are ongoing.

Introduction: Out-of-pocket costs (OOPC) are a significant barrier to care and drive suboptimal medical therapy in ASCVD. Despite this, there is minimal attention paid to these costs in post-graduate education. To define a potential knowledge gap, we surveyed trainee understanding of OOPC. Methods: We surveyed Internal Medicine residents at a large academic program comprised of a large county safety-net hospital, a VA, and a private tertiary care hospital, about knowledge and practices surrounding patient OOPC. Residents rotate on services at all sites and the vast majority have primary care clinic at the county or VA hospital. Participants answered questions considering their most recent inpatient panel and their clinic patient panel. Familiarity was ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, and for the purposes of presentation, was divided into “Poor” and “Moderate or Better”. Non-parametric analysis was used to test differences between outpatients v inpatients and by year of training. Results: Of 159 residents, 106 (67%) responded. Familiarity with patient insurance status was moderate or better in 135 of 159 (85%). Moderate or better understanding of costs associated with medications (52% [83 of 159]), testing (19% [30 of 159]) and clinic visits (30% [48 of 159]) was less common. Respondents had higher familiarity with OOPC for clinic patients compared with their most recent inpatient panel: clinic visits (39% v 21% [62 v 33 of 159 p < 0.005]), testing (25.7% v 12.4% [41 v 20 of 159 p = 0.002]), and medications (62% v 42% [99 v 67 of 159 p Discussion: Our survey demonstrates that trainee familiarity with OOPC was low overall but modestly higher for established clinic patients, perhaps reflecting longitudinal experience with them or the heterogeneity of admitted patient funding status. Familiarity with patient OOPC was not an often-considered factor in decision making and did not significantly improve over years of training. This suggests an important gap in trainee education. Teaching greater familiarity with patient OOPC during residency can increase awareness of the financial realities of patients, enabling more patient-centered care.

Key Points Question Is implementation of a novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T protocol in patients with chest pain associated with less resource use and within acceptable safety parameters? Findings This cohort study of 31 543 emergency department encounters found that implementation of the protocol was associated with a shorter length of stay in the emergency department and a higher proportion of patients discharged. There was no difference in the rate of 30-day hospitalization for myocardial infarction or death. Meaning This or similar protocols that rapidly rule out myocardial infarction have the potential to reduce emergency department overcrowding and improve health care quality., This cohort study of patients at a large US safety net hospital examines the safety of and resource use associated with a new protocol for excluding myocardial infarction from diagnosis of patients with chest pains through the use of high-sensitivity troponin., Importance High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) protocols for the evaluation of chest pain in the emergency department (ED) may reduce unnecessary resource use and overcrowding. Objective To determine whether the implementation of a novel hs-cTnT protocol, which incorporated troponin values drawn at 0, 1, and 3 hours after ED presentation and the modified HEART score (history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors), was associated with improvements in resource use while maintaining safety. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study from Parkland Health and Hospital System, a large safety net hospital in Dallas, Texas, included data on 31 543 unique ED encounters in which patients underwent electrocardiographic and troponin testing from January 1, 2017, to October 16, 2018. The hs-cTnT protocol was implemented in December 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures Resource use outcomes included trends in ED dwell time, troponin to disposition decision time (the difference between the first troponin draw time and the time an order was placed for inpatient admission, admission to observation, or discharge), and final patient disposition. Safety outcomes included readmission for myocardial infarction and death. Results In 31 543 encounters, mean (SD) patient age was 54 (14.4) years and 14 675 patients (48%) were female. Department dwell time decreased by a mean of −1.09 (95% CI, −2.81 to 0.64) minutes per month in the preintervention period. The decline was steeper after the intervention (−4.69 [95% CI, −9.05 to −0.33] minutes per month) (P for interaction = .007). The troponin to disposition time was increasing in the preintervention period by 1.72 (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.36) minutes per month; postintervention, the mean difference increased more slowly (0.37 [95% CI, −1.25 to 1.99 minutes per month; P value for interaction = .007]). The proportion of patients discharged from the ED increased after the intervention (48% vs 54%, P

Objectives Patients with severe hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥190 ​mg/dL) have a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are more likely to have familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). We sought to determine how often health care providers recognize the implications of and adjust therapy for an LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of patients with an LDL-C measurement in the medical record of a large health care system between November 2015 and June 2016. Patients were restricted to those with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL and without secondary causes of dyslipidemia, with sensitivity analyses for those with LDL-C ≥220 ​mg/dL. Results Of 27,963 patients, 227 had LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL. Only 21% were on a statin at the time of LDL-C measurement. More than 90% had a follow-up clinic visit, but 41% had no change in treatment. FH was only included in the differential for 14%. The presence/absence of a family history of dyslipidemia, myocardial infarction, and premature CVD were documented in 26%, 29%, and 31%. Only 20.7% and 22.1% had documentation of the presence or absence of tendinous xanthomas or corneal arcus, respectively. Among those without prior specialist care (cardiologist or endocrinologist), only 13% were referred. These measures were only slightly better for those with LDL-C ≥220 ​mg/dL. Conclusion In a large health care system, the possibility of FH was rarely acknowledged in those with residual LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL, few were referred to specialists, and therapeutic adjustments were suboptimal. Additional efforts are required to understand barriers to improving the evaluation and management of patients with LDL-C ≥190 ​mg/dL.