Trial of an Intervention to Improve Acute Heart Failure Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute heart failure are frequently or systematically hospitalized, often because the risk of adverse events is uncertain and the options for rapid follow-up are inadequate. Whether the use of a strategy to support clinicians in making decisions about discharging or admitting patients, coupled with rapid follow-up in an outpatient clinic, would affect outcomes remains uncertain. METHODS: In a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial conducted in Ontario, Canada, we randomly assigned 10 hospitals to staggered start dates for one-way crossover from the control phase (usual care) to the intervention phase, which involved the use of a point-of-care algorithm to stratify patients with acute heart failure according to the risk of death. During the intervention phase, low-risk patients were discharged early (in ≤3 days) and received standardized outpatient care, and high-risk patients were admitted to the hospital. The coprimary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes within 30 days after presentation and the composite outcome within 20 months. RESULTS: A total of 5452 patients were enrolled in the trial (2972 during the control phase and 2480 during the intervention phase). Within 30 days, death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 301 patients (12.1%) who were enrolled during the intervention phase and in 430 patients (14.5%) who were enrolled during the control phase (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.04). Within 20 months, the cumulative incidence of primary-outcome events was 54.4% (95% CI, 48.6 to 59.9) among patients who were enrolled during the intervention phase and 56.2% (95% CI, 54.2 to 58.1) among patients who were enrolled during the control phase (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99). Fewer than six deaths or hospitalizations for any cause occurred in low- or intermediate-risk patients before the first outpatient visit within 30 days after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute heart failure who were seeking emergency care, the use of a hospital-based strategy to support clinical decision making and rapid follow-up led to a lower risk of the composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes within 30 days than usual care. (Funded by the Ontario SPOR Support Unit and others; COACH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02674438.).

Early invasive coronary angiography and acute ischaemic heart failure outcomes.

AIMS: While myocardial ischaemia plays a major role in the pathogenesis of heart failure (HF), the indications for coronary angiography during acute HF are not established. We determined the association of early coronary angiography during acute HF hospitalization with 2-year mortality, cardiovascular death, HF readmissions, and coronary revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a two-stage sampling process, we identified acute HF patients who presented to 70 emergency departments in Ontario (April 2010 to March 2013) and determined whether they underwent early coronary angiography within 14 days after presentation using administrative databases. After clinical record review, we defined a cohort with acute ischaemic HF as patients with at least one factor suggesting underlying ischaemic heart disease, including previous myocardial infarction, troponin elevation, or angina on presentation. We oversampled patients undergoing angiography. We used inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for baseline differences. Of 7239 patients with acute HF, 2994 met inclusion criteria [median age 75 (interquartile range 65-83) years; 40.9% women]. Early angiography was performed in 1567 patients (52.3%) and was associated with lower all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.90, P = 0.002], cardiovascular death (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, P = 0.012), and HF readmissions (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, P = 0.042) after IPTW. Those undergoing early angiography experienced higher rates of percutaneous coronary intervention (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.73-3.86, P < 0.001) and coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 2.94, 95% CI 1.75-4.93, P < 0.001) within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Early coronary angiography was associated with lower all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, HF readmissions, and higher rates of coronary revascularization in acute HF patients with possible ischaemia.

Implications of Five Different Risk Models In Primary Prevention Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: A lack of consensus exists across guidelines as to which risk model should be used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Our objective was to determine potential improvements in the number needed to treat (NNT) and number of events prevented (NEP) using different risk models in patients eligible for risk stratification. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort was assembled from primary care patients in Ontario, Canada between January 1st, 2010, to December 31st, 2014 and followed for up to 5 years. Risk estimation was undertaken in patients 40-75 years of age, without CVD, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS), Pooled Cohort Equations (PCEs), a recalibrated FRS (R-FRS), Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2), and the low-risk region recalibrated SCORE2 (LR-SCORE2). RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 47,399 patients (59% women, mean age 54). The NNT with statins was lowest for SCORE2 at 40, followed by LR-SCORE2 at 41, R-FRS at 43, PCEs at 55, and FRS at 65. Models that selected for individuals with a lower NNT recommended statins to fewer, but higher risk patients. For instance, SCORE2 recommended statins to 7.9% of patients (5-year CVD incidence 5.92%). The FRS, however, recommended statins to 34.6% of patients (5-year CVD incidence 4.01%). Accordingly, the NEP was highest for the FRS at 406 and lowest for SCORE2 at 156. CONCLUSIONS: Newer models such as SCORE2 may improve statin allocation to higher risk groups with a lower NNT but prevent fewer events at the population level.

Evaluating Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Printable Patient Education Materials for Cholesterol Management: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia management is a cornerstone in cardiovascular disease prevention and relies heavily on patient adherence to lifestyle modifications and medications. Numerous cholesterol patient education materials are available online, but it remains unclear whether these resources are suitable for the majority of North American adults given the prevalence of low health literacy. This review aimed to (1) identify printable cholesterol patient education materials through an online search, and (2) evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of each resource to determine its utility in practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the MEDLINE database for peer-reviewed educational materials and the websites of Canadian and American national health organizations for gray literature. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and scores between fifth- and sixth-grade reading levels were considered adequate. Understandability and actionability were scored using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and categorized as superior (>80%), adequate (50%-70%), or inadequate (<50%). Our search yielded 91 results that were screened for eligibility. Among the 22 educational materials included in the study, 15 were identified through MEDLINE, and 7 were from websites. The readability across all materials averaged an 11th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level=11.9±2.59). The mean±SD understandability and actionability scores were 82.8±6.58% and 40.9±28.60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The readability of online cholesterol patient education materials consistently exceeds the health literacy level of the average North American adult. Many resources also inadequately describe action items for individuals to self-manage their cholesterol, representing an implementation gap in cardiovascular disease prevention.

Real-World Examination of Revascularization Strategies for Left Main Coronary Disease in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have compared percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing nonemergent revascularization. However, there is a paucity of real-world contemporary observational studies comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and CABG. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of CABG versus PCI in patients with left main coronary disease. METHODS: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain records of all patients with angiographic evidence of left main coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis) treated with either isolated CABG or PCI from 2008 to 2020. Emergent, cardiogenic shock, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were excluded. Baseline characteristics of patients were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Late mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were compared between the matched groups using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: After exclusions, 1,299 and 21,287 patients underwent PCI and CABG, respectively. Prior to matching, PCI patients were older (age 75.2 vs 68.0 years) and more likely to be women (34.6% vs 20.1%), although they had less CAD burden. Propensity score matching on 25 baseline covariates yielded 1,128 well-matched pairs. There was no difference in early mortality between PCI and CABG (5.5% vs 3.9%; P = 0.075). Over 7-year follow-up, all-cause mortality (53.6% vs 35.2%; HR: 1.63; 95% CI: 1.42-1.87; P < 0.001) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.8% vs 48.6%; HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.57-2.00) were significantly higher with PCI than CABG. CONCLUSIONS: CABG was the most common revascularization strategy in this real-world registry. Patients undergoing PCI were much older and of higher risk at baseline. After matching, there was no difference in early mortality but improved late survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events with CABG.

Variations in Coronary Revascularization Practices and Their Effect on Long-Term Outcomes.

Background The degree of hospital-level variation in the ratio of percutaneous coronary interventions to coronary artery bypass grafting procedures (PCI:CABG) and the association of the PCI:CABG ratio with clinical outcome are unknown. Methods and Results In a multicenter population-based study conducted in Ontario, Canada, we identified 44 288 patients from 19 institutions who had nonemergent diagnostic angiograms indicating severe multivessel coronary artery disease (2013-2017) and underwent a coronary revascularization procedure within 90 days. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to their adjusted PCI:CABG ratio into low (0.70-0.85, n=17 487), medium (1.01-1.17, n=15 275), and high (1.18-1.29, n=11 526) ratio institutions. Compared with low PCI:CABG ratio hospitals, hazard ratios (HRs) for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were higher at medium (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25) and high ratio (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.15-1.27) hospitals during a median 3.3 (interquartile range 2.1-4.6) years follow-up. When interventional cardiologists performed the diagnostic angiogram, the odds of the patient receiving PCI was higher (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23-1.52) than when it was performed by noninterventional cardiologists, after accounting for patient characteristics. Having the diagnostic angiogram at an institution without cardiac surgical capabilities was independently associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), death (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.18), and myocardial infarction (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17). Conclusions Patients undergoing diagnostic angiography in hospitals with higher PCI:CABG ratio had higher rates of adverse outcomes, including major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Presence of on-site cardiac surgery was associated with better survival and lower major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

Intensity of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease and Ischemic Heart Failure Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The impact of guideline-directed medical therapy for coronary heart disease in those hospitalized with acute heart failure is unknown. METHODS: We studied guideline-directed medical therapies for coronary disease: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), beta-adrenoreceptor antagonists, antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, and statins. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting the propensity score, we examined associations of guideline-directed medical therapy intensity (categorized as low [0-1], high [2-3], or very high [4] number of drugs) with mortality in 1873 patients with angina, troponin elevation, or prior myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At discharge, 0-1, 2-3, and 4 medications were prescribed in 467 (25%), 705 (38%), and 701 (37%) patients, respectively. Relative to those prescribed 0-1 drugs (reference), all-cause mortality was lower with 2-3 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-0.84, P = 0.009) or all 4 drug classes (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.96, P = 0.034) over 181-365 days, with similar reductions present from 0-180 days. In those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, mortality trended lower with 2-3 drug classes (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.02, P = 0.054) and was significantly reduced with 4 drugs (HR 0.32, 95%CI 0.12-0.84, P = 0.021) during 0-180 day follow-up. In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, all-cause mortality was reduced during both 0-180 and 181-365 days when discharged on 2-3 (HR 0.30 for 181-365 days, 95%CI 0.14-0.64, P = 0.002) or all 4 drug classes (HR 0.43, 95%CI 0.19-0.95, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing guideline-directed medical therapy intensity for coronary heart disease resulted in lower mortality in patients with acute ischemic heart failure with both preserved and reduced ejection fractions.

The Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team performance indicators for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modified Delphi panel study.

BACKGROUND: High-quality ambulatory care can reduce cardiovascular disease risk, but important gaps exist in the provision of cardiovascular preventive care. We sought to develop a set of key performance indicators that can be used to measure and improve cardiovascular care in the primary care setting. METHODS: As part of the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team initiative, we established a 14-member multidisciplinary expert panel to develop a set of indicators for measuring primary prevention performance in ambulatory cardiovascular care. We used a 2-stage modified Delphi panel process to rate potential indicators, which were identified from the literature and national cardiovascular organizations. The top-rated indicators were pilot tested to determine their measurement feasibility with the use of data routinely collected in the Canadian health care system. RESULTS: A set of 28 indicators of primary prevention performance were identified, which were grouped into 5 domains: risk factor prevalence, screening, management, intermediate outcomes and long-term outcomes. The indicators reflect the major cardiovascular risk factors including smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation. All indicators were determined to be amenable to measurement with the use of population-based administrative (physician claims, hospital admission, laboratory, medication), survey or electronic medical record databases. INTERPRETATION: The Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team indicators of primary prevention performance provide a framework for the measurement of cardiovascular primary prevention efforts in Canada. The indicators may be used by clinicians, researchers and policy-makers interested in measuring and improving the prevention of cardiovascular disease in ambulatory care settings.

Incident atrial fibrillation in the emergency department in Ontario: a population-based retrospective cohort study of follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care has been shown to be poor following in-hospital discharge, and there are substantially fewer resources to facilitate follow-up care arrangements after discharge from an emergency department. Our objective was to assess the frequency, timeliness and predictors for obtaining follow-up care following discharge from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving all patients discharged from the 157 nonpediatric emergency departments in Ontario, who received a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation between 2007 and 2012. We determined the frequency of follow-up care with a family physician, cardiologist or internist within 7 (timely) and 30 days of the emergency department visit, and assessed the association of emergency and family physician characteristics, including primary care model type, with obtaining timely follow-up care. RESULTS: Among 14 907 patients discharged from Ontario emergency departments with a new, primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, half (n = 7473) had timely follow-up care. At 30 days, 2678 patients (18.0%) still had not obtained follow-up care. Among emergency and family physician factors, lack of a family physician had the largest independent association with acquiring timely follow-up care (odds ratio [OR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.69). Using patients with a family physician belonging to a primarily fee-for-service remuneration model as the comparison group, patients with a family physician belonging to a capitation-based Family Health Network, as part of a Family Health Team, were less likely to receive timely follow-up care (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.86), as were those whose family physician belonged to the same model type that was not part of a Family Health Team (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.97). INTERPRETATION: Only half of the patients who were discharged from an emergency department in Ontario with a new diagnosis of atrial fibrillation were seen within 7 days of discharge. The most influential factor was having a family physician; patients with a family physician being remunerated via primarily fee-for-service methods were more likely to be seen within 7 days than those who were reimbursed through a primarily capitation model. Systems-wide solutions are needed to ensure timely follow-up care is available for all patients with chronic diseases.

CCORT/CCS quality indicators for congestive heart failure care.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators are measurement tools for assessing the structure, processes and outcomes of care. Although quality indicators have been developed in other countries, Canadian cardiovascular disease indicators do not exist. OBJECTIVE: To develop quality indicators for measuring and improving congestive heart failure (CHF) care in Canada. METHODS: An 11-member multidisciplinary national expert panel was selected from nominees from national medical organizations. Potential quality indicators were identified by a detailed search of published guidelines, randomized trials and outcomes studies. A two-step modified Delphi process was employed with an initial screening round of indicator ratings, followed by a national quality indicator panel meeting, where definitions of the indicators were developed using consensus methods. Indicators were designed to be measurable, using retrospective chart review and linking existing administrative databases. RESULTS: The case definition criterion was developed based on a discharge diagnosis of CHF (International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision [ICD-9] code 428.x), with diagnostic confirmation using clinical criteria. In total, 29 indicators and five test indicators were recommended. Process indicators included prescription for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers or warfarin (for atrial fibrillation) at hospital discharge. Nonpharmacological in hospital process indicators included evaluation of left ventricular function, weight measurement and selected patient education counselling instructions. Process indicators in the ambulatory setting included prescription and adherence to drug therapies and physician follow-up. Outcome indicators included mortality, readmissions and emergency visits. CONCLUSIONS: A set of Canadian quality indicators for CHF care encompassing organizational attributes, pharmacotherapy, investigations, counselling, continuity of care and disease outcomes has been developed. These quality indicators will serve as a foundation for future studies evaluating the quality of CHF care in Canada.

CCORT/CCS quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction care.

BACKGROUND: Although quality indicators for the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients have been described for other countries, there are none specifically designed for the Canadian health care system. The authors' goal was to develop a set of Canadian quality indicators for AMI care. METHODS: A literature review identified existing quality indicators for AMI care. A list of potential indicators was assessed by a nine-member panel of clinicians from a variety of disciplines using a modified-Delphi panel process. After an initial round of rating the potential indicators, a series of indicators was identified for a second round of discussion at a national meeting. Further refinement of indicators occurred following a teleconference and review by external reviewers. RESULTS: To identify an AMI cohort, case definition criteria were developed, using a hospital discharge diagnosis for AMI of International Classification of Diseases-Ninth revision (ICD-9) code 410.x. Thirty-seven indicators for AMI care were established. Pharmacological process of care indicators included administration of acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, thrombolytics and statins. Mortality and readmissions for AMI, unstable angina and congestive heart failure were recommended as outcome indicators. Nonpharmacological indicators included median length of stay in the emergency department, and median waiting times for cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. INTERPRETATION: A set of Canadian quality indicators for the care of AMI patients has been established. It is anticipated that these indicators will be useful to clinicians and researchers who want to measure and improve the quality of AMI patient care in Canada.