Cognitive Impairment in Heart Failure: A Heart Failure Society of America Scientific Statement.

Cognitive impairment is common among adults with heart failure (HF), as both diseases are strongly related to advancing age and multimorbidity (including both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular conditions). Moreover, HF itself can contribute to alterations in the brain. Cognition is critical for a myriad of self-care activities that are necessary to manage HF, and it also has a major impact on prognosis; consequently, cognitive impairment has important implications for self-care, medication management, function and independence, and life expectancy. Attuned clinicians caring for patients with HF can identify clinical clues present at medical encounters that suggest cognitive impairment. When present, screening tests such as the Mini-Cog, and consideration of referral for comprehensive neurocognitive testing may be indicated. Management of cognitive impairment should focus on treatment of underlying causes of and contributors to cognitive impairment, medication management/optimization, and accommodation of deficiencies in self-care. Given its implications on care, it is important to integrate cognitive impairment into clinical decision making. Although gaps in knowledge and challenges to implementation exist, this scientific statement is intended to guide clinicians in caring for and meeting the needs of an increasingly complex and growing subpopulation of patients with HF.

Cost-effectiveness of systematic screening and treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in United States.

BACKGROUND: Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) is an underdiagnosed cause of heart failure in clinical practice. 99mTc-pyrophosphate scintigraphy (PYP-scan) improves the accuracy of ATTR-CM detection, enabling timely initiation of tafamidis, a drug that slows the progression of ATTR-CM and lowers the risk of adverse cardiac events. PYP-scans, serum free light-chain (FLC) test and immunofixation electrophoresis (IFE) are critical components of a systematic screening. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal systematic screening (USS) compared to standard-of-care (SoC) selected clinical referrals for the systematic screening in patients aged 60 years or older with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and ventricular wall thickness of at least 12 mm. METHODS: Two screening strategies, USS versus SoC screening for ATTR-CM were compared in a model-based assessment. Treatment decisions were based upon the accuracy of each screening strategy, which was followed by Markov state transitions across New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes and death. Model inputs were identified from a literature review. We calculated lifetime cost in 2022 US dollars and quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) of each strategy. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The USS was associated with a significant increase in lifetime costs ($124,380 vs. $70,412) and modest improvement in QALYs (4.42 QALYs vs 4.36 QALYs). The ICER for the USS was $919,509 per QALY gained. ICER was sensitive to the age at the time of ATTR-CM diagnosis, true prevalence rate of ATTR-CM, and daily cost of tafamidis. CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the high cost of treatment with tafamidis, USS along with PYP scan for ATTR-CM in older HFpEF patients with ventricular wall thickening is unlikely to become a cost-effective strategy at a liberal WTP threshold.

Reversal of Oral Anticoagulants: A Survey of Contemporary Practice Trends (ReACT).

This study evaluated practice patterns and factors influencing treatment decisions regarding urgent or emergent reversal of oral anticoagulants (OACs). A 30-question survey was electronically distributed to anticoagulation members of the Anticoagulation Forum. Questions were designed to capture practice trends in the reversal of warfarin, factor Xa inhibitors, and factor IIa inhibitors. Continuous and categorical data were analyzed to generate descriptive statistics. Open-ended questions were summarized by thematic categories. 173 responses were collected most from US-based pharmacists with direct patient care responsibilities. The majority of the respondents' institutions (90.2%) utilized a guideline or protocol for OACs reversal. Vitamin K (91.3%), activated charcoal (80.4%), and fresh frozen plasma (72.8%) were the most common reversal agents on formulary without restrictions. Most institutions (87.0%) reported having 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) and idarucizumab on formulary, but most commonly (52.2%) with restrictions. Andexanet alfa was only reported on formulary at 35.9% of institutions. In contrast to current guideline recommendations, vitamin K (98.8%) was preferred over 4F-PCC and 4F-PCC (71.6%) was preferred over andexanet alfa as first-line agents used to reverse warfarin and factor Xa inhibitors, respectively. Weight-based dosing strategies for 4F-PCC were commonly utilized for different reversals (41.2%-59.4%). Cost, efficacy, and safety of 4F-PCC were identified as top facilitators and barriers for 4F-PCC adoption in practice. Our findings revealed that guideline recommendations for reversal of warfarin and factor Xa and IIa inhibitors are not followed by a majority of institutions. Studies are needed to investigate strategies to overcome barriers for implementing and following guideline recommendations.

Stratification of burnout in health-system pharmacists during the COVID-19 pandemic: A focus on the ambulatory care pharmacist.

Introduction: Burnout is defined as high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment from work. Prevalence of burnout among health-system and ambulatory care pharmacists is unknown during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to analyze burnout prevalence among health-system pharmacists (HSPs) and ambulatory care pharmacists (ACPs) using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Maslach Burnout Inventory. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to HSPs at two academic health systems in Chicago, IL. Demographics, risk of burnout based on two validated assessments (the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory [OLBI] and the Maslach Burnout Inventory [MBI]), burnout contributors, burnout mitigation strategies, and change in burnout due to COVID-19 were collected. Burnout was defined as meeting any one criterion for high burnout on the following dimensions: exhaustion score and disengagement on the OLBI, and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the MBI. The co-primary outcomes were the prevalence of burnout among HSPs, and the comparison of ACP burnout to that of non-ambulatory HSPs. Secondary outcomes were comparison of burnout between the OLBI and MBI assessments, conceptualization of the causes and contributors of burnout and mitigation strategies among HSPs, and the self-perceived effect of COVID-19 on burnout severity. Results: Of the 113 pharmacists included in the study, HSP burnout prevalence as defined above was 87.6%, ACP burnout was 88.4%, and non-ambulatory HSP burnout was 87.1%. There was no statistical difference between ACP and non-ambulatory HSP burnout prevalence, either overall or in any specific burnout dimension. The OLBI and MBI captured similar rates of burnout. The commonly reported burnout causes were staffing and scheduling issues, precepting requirements, and patient needs. Participants' most reported coping strategies were spending time with family/friends, sleep, exercise, and recreational/relaxation activities. A majority of HSPs (78.2%) reported higher levels of burnout due to COVID-19. Conclusion: HSP burnout during COVID-19 pandemic is higher than cited in the pre-COVID literature. Individual coping strategies are poor buffers for work-related burnout.

Pragmatic Clinical Trial to Improve Patient Experience Among Adults During Transitions from Hospital to Home: the PArTNER study.

INTRODUCTION: Minority-serving hospitals (MSHs) need evidence-based strategies tailored to the populations they serve to improve patient-centered outcomes after hospitalization. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) from October 2014 to January 2017 at a MSH comparing the effectiveness of a stakeholder-supported Navigator intervention vs. Usual care on post-hospital patient experience, outcomes, and healthcare utilization. Community health workers and peer coaches delivered the intervention which included (1) in-hospital visits to assess barriers to health/healthcare and to develop a personalized Discharge Patient Education Tool (DPET); (2) a home visit to review the DPET; and (3) telephone-based peer coaching. The co-primary outcomes were between-group comparisons of 30-day changes in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures of anxiety and informational support (minimum important difference is 2 to 5 units change); a p-value <0.025 was considered significant using intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included death, ED visits, or readmissions and measures of emotional, social, and physical health at 30 and 60 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 1029 adults hospitalized with heart failure (28%), pneumonia (22%), MI (10%), COPD (11%), or sickle cell disease (29%). Over 80% were non-Hispanic Black. Overall, there were no significant between-group differences in the 30-day change in anxiety (adjusted difference: -1.6, 97.5% CI -3.3 to 0.1, p=0.03), informational support (adjusted difference: -0.01, 97.5% CI -2.0 to 1.9, p=0.99), or any secondary outcomes. Exploratory analyses suggested the Navigator intervention improved anxiety among participants with COPD, a primary care provider, a hospitalization in the past 12 months, or higher baseline anxiety; among participants without health insurance, the intervention improved informational support (all p-values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic RCT at a MSH, the Navigator intervention did not improve post-hospital anxiety, informational support, or other outcomes compared to Usual care. Benefits observed in participant subgroups should be confirmed in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02114515.

Optimizing anticoagulation for patients receiving Impella support.

Anticoagulation of patients treated with the Impella percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices is complex and lacks consistency across centers, potentially increasing the risk of complications. In order to optimize safety and efficacy, an expert committee synthesized all available evidence evaluating anticoagulation for patients receiving Impella support in order to provide consensus recommendations for the management of anticoagulation with these devices. The evidence synthesis led to the creation of 42 recommendations to improve anticoagulation management related to the use of the Impella devices. Recommendations address purge solution management, intravenous anticoagulation, monitoring, evaluation and management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), and management during combination MCS support. The use of a heparinized, dextrose-containing purge solution is critical for optimal device function, and a bicarbonate-based purge solution may be an alternative in certain situations. Likewise, intravenous (ie, systemic) anticoagulation with heparin is often necessary, although evidence supporting the optimal assay and target range for monitoring the level of anticoagulation is generally lacking. Patients treated with an Impella MCS device may develop HIT, which is more difficult to evaluate and treat in this setting. Lastly, the use of Impella with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or for biventricular support creates additional anticoagulation challenges.

Influence of digoxin on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation: Overview of systematic reviews.

Once a routine part of atrial fibrillation (AF) management, digoxin use has declined. Likely hastening this decline are findings from several studies and systematic reviews identifying a potential association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, inconsistency exists within some of these studies potentially leading to confusion among clinicians. To critically evaluate the current literature to contextualize the associations between digoxin and mortality risk in patients with AF by performing an overview of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS from their earliest date through October 12, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) that included studies enrolling patients with AF or atrial flutter and evaluated the association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality. We used the AMSTAR 2 tool to assess the risk of bias for each included SR. Results from reviews are qualitatively synthesized. Our search identified 10 SRs that met our inclusion criteria. Of the 41 unique AF studies included in these SRs, 41% were cohort studies, 29% were post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15% were RCTs, and 15% were registry studies. Based on our AMSTAR 2 assessment, the overall confidence in the results of the 10 reviews was rated as "moderate" in three SRs, "low" in three SRs, and "critically low" in the rest. Except for one review, each included SR shows that digoxin use in AF is associated with a 15 to 38% higher risk of all-cause mortality. This association may be greater when AF-only populations are considered compared with a mix of AF and heart failure populations. Serum digoxin concentration (SDC) data were infrequently considered, but available data suggested a greater association between increasing SDC and all-cause mortality. This overview of reviews found general consistency regarding the association between digoxin use and higher all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, heterogeneity exists among and between SRs and an unmet need exists for additional study in a RCT setting with close monitoring and reporting of SDC to better inform clinical practice.

Risk of cardiac events with azithromycin-A prediction model.

Previous studies have suggested an increased risk of cardiac events with azithromycin, but the predictors of such events are unknown. We sought to develop and validate two prediction models to identify such predictors. We used data from Truven Marketscan Database (01/2009 to 06/2015). Using a split-sample approach, we developed two prediction models, which included baseline demographics, clinical conditions (Model 1), concurrent use of any drug (Model 1) and therapeutic class (Model 2) with a risk of QT-prolongation (CQT-Rx). Patients enrolled in a health plan for 365 days before and five days after dispensing of azithromycin (episodes). Cardiac events included syncope, palpitations, ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest as a primary diagnosis for hospitalization including death. For each model, a backward elimination of predictors using logistic regression was applied to identify predictors in 100 random samples of the training cohort. Predictors prevalent in >50% of the models were included in the final model. A score for the Assessment of Cardiac Risk with Azithromycin (ACRA) was generated using the training cohort then tested in the validation cohort. A cohort of 20,134,659 episodes with 0.03% cardiac events were included. Over 60% included females with mean age of 40.1±21.3 years. Age, sex, history of syncope, cardiac dysrhythmias, non-specific chest pain, and presence of a CQT-Rx were included as predictors for Model-1 (c-statistic = 0.68). For Model-2 (c-statistic = 0.64), predictors included age, sex, anti-arrhythmic agents, anti-emetics, antidepressants, loop diuretics, and ACE inhibitors. ACRA score is available online (bit.ly/ACRA_2020). The ACRA score may help identify patients who are at higher risk of cardiac events following treatment with azithromycin. Providers should assess the risk-benefit of using azithromycin and consider alternative antibiotics among high-risk patients.