Effects of the Million Hearts Model on Myocardial Infarctions, Strokes, and Medicare Spending: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Million Hearts Model paid health care organizations to assess and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Model effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. Objective: To estimate model effects on first-time myocardial infarctions (MIs) and strokes and Medicare spending over a period up to 5 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic cluster-randomized trial ran from 2017 to 2021, with organizations assigned to a model intervention group or standard care control group. Randomized organizations included 516 US-based primary care and specialty practices, health centers, and hospital-based outpatient clinics participating voluntarily. Of these organizations, 342 entered patients into the study population, which included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 40 to 79 years with no previous MI or stroke and with high or medium CVD risk (a 10-year predicted probability of MI or stroke [ie, CVD risk score] ≥15%) in 2017-2018. Intervention: Organizations agreed to perform guideline-concordant care, including routine CVD risk assessment and cardiovascular care management for high-risk patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations to calculate CVD risk scores for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. CMS further rewarded organizations for reducing risk among high-risk beneficiaries (CVD risk score ≥30%). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included first-time CVD events (MIs, strokes, and transient ischemic attacks) identified in Medicare claims, combined first-time CVD events from claims and CVD deaths (coronary heart disease or cerebrovascular disease deaths) identified using the National Death Index, and Medicare Parts A and B spending for CVD events and overall. Outcomes were measured through 2021. Results: High- and medium-risk model intervention beneficiaries (n = 130 578) and standard care control beneficiaries (n = 88 286) were similar in age (median age, 72-73 y), sex (58%-59% men), race (7%-8% Black), and baseline CVD risk score (median, 24%). The probability of a first-time CVD event within 5 years was 0.3 percentage points lower for intervention beneficiaries than control beneficiaries (3.3% relative effect; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 [90% CI, 0.93-1.00]; P = .09). The 5-year probability of combined first-time CVD events and CVD deaths was 0.4 percentage points lower in the intervention group (4.2% relative effect; HR, 0.96 [90% CI, 0.93-0.99]; P = .02). Medicare spending for CVD events was similar between the groups (effect estimate, -$1.83 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$3.97 to -$0.30]; P = .16), as was overall Medicare spending including model payments (effect estimate, $2.11 per beneficiary per month [90% CI, -$16.66 to $20.89]; P = .85). Conclusions and Relevance: The Million Hearts Model, which encouraged and paid for CVD risk assessment and reduction, reduced first-time MIs and strokes. Results support guidelines to use risk scores for CVD primary prevention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04047147.

An Electronically Delivered Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EPIC-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major gaps exist in the routine initiation and dose up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients. METHODS: The EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual care versus patient activation tools-a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist-delivered electronically 1 week before, 3 days before, and 24 hours before a cardiology clinic visit. The tools encouraged patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to "make one positive change" in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prescribing. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with GDMT medication initiations and dose intensifications from immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, compared with usual care during the same period. RESULTS: EPIC-HF enrolled 306 patients, 290 of whom attended a clinic visit during the study period: 145 were sent the patient activation tools and 145 were controls. The median age of patients was 65 years; 29% were female, 11% were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and the median ejection fraction was 32%. Preclinic data revealed significant GDMT opportunities, with no patients on target doses of ß-blocker, sacubitril/valsartan, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. From immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, 49.0% in the intervention and 29.7% in the control experienced an initiation or intensification of their GDMT (P=0.001). The majority of these changes were made at the clinician encounter itself and involved dose uptitrations. There were no deaths and no significant differences in hospitalization or emergency department visits at 30 days between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A patient activation tool delivered electronically before a cardiology clinic visit improved clinician intensification of GDMT. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334188.

Part 7: Systems of Care: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

Survival after cardiac arrest requires an integrated system of people, training, equipment, and organizations working together to achieve a common goal. Part 7 of the 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care focuses on systems of care, with an emphasis on elements that are relevant to a broad range of resuscitation situations. Previous systems of care guidelines have identified a Chain of Survival, beginning with prevention and early identification of cardiac arrest and proceeding through resuscitation to post-cardiac arrest care. This concept is reinforced by the addition of recovery as an important stage in cardiac arrest survival. Debriefing and other quality improvement strategies were previously mentioned and are now emphasized. Specific to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, this Part contains recommendations about community initiatives to promote cardiac arrest recognition, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, public access defibrillation, mobile phone technologies to summon first responders, and an enhanced role for emergency telecommunicators. Germane to in-hospital cardiac arrest are recommendations about the recognition and stabilization of hospital patients at risk for developing cardiac arrest. This Part also includes recommendations about clinical debriefing, transport to specialized cardiac arrest centers, organ donation, and performance measurement across the continuum of resuscitation situations.

Part 2: Evidence Evaluation and Guidelines Development: 2020 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care.

The 2020 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care is based on the extensive evidence evaluation performed in conjunction with the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. The Adult Basic and Advanced Life Support, Pediatric Basic and Advanced Life Support, Neonatal Life Support, Resuscitation Education Science, and Systems of Care Writing Groups drafted, reviewed, and approved recommendations, assigning to each recommendation a Class of Recommendation (ie, strength) and Level of Evidence (ie, quality). The 2020 Guidelines are organized in knowledge chunks that are grouped into discrete modules of information on specific topics or management issues. The 2020 Guidelines underwent blinded peer review by subject matter experts and were also reviewed and approved for publication by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee and the AHA Executive Committee. The AHA has rigorous conflict-of-interest policies and procedures to minimize the risk of bias or improper influence during development of the guidelines. Anyone involved in any part of the guideline development process disclosed all commercial relationships and other potential conflicts of interest.

An Electronically delivered, Patient-activation tool for Intensification of medications for Chronic Heart Failure with reduced ejection fraction: Rationale and design of the EPIC-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) benefits from initiation and intensification of multiple pharmacotherapies. Unfortunately, there are major gaps in the routine use of these drugs. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of HFrEF treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients. HYPOTHESIS: Encouraging patients to engage providers in HFrEF prescribing decisions will improve the use of guideline-directed medical therapies. DESIGN: The Electronically delivered, Patient-activation tool for Intensification of Chronic medications for Heart Failure with reduced ejection fraction (EPIC-HF) trial randomizes patients with HFrEF to usual care versus patient-activation tools-a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist-delivered prior to cardiology clinic visits that encourage patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to intensify HFrEF prescribing. The study assesses the effectiveness of the EPIC-HF intervention to improve guideline-directed medical therapy in the month after its delivery while using an implementation design to also understand the reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of this approach within the context of real-world care delivery. Study enrollment was completed in January 2020, with a total 305 patients. Baseline data revealed significant opportunities, with <1% of patients on optimal HFrEF medical therapy. SUMMARY: The EPIC-HF trial assesses the implementation, effectiveness, and safety of patient engagement in HFrEF prescribing decisions. If successful, the tool can be easily disseminated and may inform similar interventions for other chronic conditions.

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) appears to reduce BP in hypertension but important questions remain regarding effective implementation and which groups may benefit most. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to better understand the effectiveness of BP self-monitoring to lower BP and control hypertension. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised trials comparing self-monitoring to no self-monitoring in hypertensive patients (June 2016). Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility and the authors of eligible trials were approached requesting IPD. Of 2,846 articles in the initial search, 36 were eligible. IPD were provided from 25 trials, including 1 unpublished study. Data for the primary outcomes-change in mean clinic or ambulatory BP and proportion controlled below target at 12 months-were available from 15/19 possible studies (7,138/8,292 [86%] of randomised participants). Overall, self-monitoring was associated with reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (sBP) compared to usual care at 12 months (-3.2 mmHg, [95% CI -4.9, -1.6 mmHg]). However, this effect was strongly influenced by the intensity of co-intervention ranging from no effect with self-monitoring alone (-1.0 mmHg [-3.3, 1.2]), to a 6.1 mmHg (-9.0, -3.2) reduction when monitoring was combined with intensive support. Self-monitoring was most effective in those with fewer antihypertensive medications and higher baseline sBP up to 170 mmHg. No differences in efficacy were seen by sex or by most comorbidities. Ambulatory BP data at 12 months were available from 4 trials (1,478 patients), which assessed self-monitoring with little or no co-intervention. There was no association between self-monitoring and either lower clinic or ambulatory sBP in this group (clinic -0.2 mmHg [-2.2, 1.8]; ambulatory 1.1 mmHg [-0.3, 2.5]). Results for diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar. The main limitation of this work was that significant heterogeneity remained. This was at least in part due to different inclusion criteria, self-monitoring regimes, and target BPs in included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Self-monitoring alone is not associated with lower BP or better control, but in conjunction with co-interventions (including systematic medication titration by doctors, pharmacists, or patients; education; or lifestyle counselling) leads to clinically significant BP reduction which persists for at least 12 months. The implementation of self-monitoring in hypertension should be accompanied by such co-interventions.

Measuring the cost of poor asthma control and exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown an association between cost and poor asthma control. However, longitudinal studies of general populations are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To examine the cost of poor asthma control and exacerbations across a broad spectrum of asthma patients. METHODS: The Observational Study of Asthma Control and Outcomes (OSACO) was a prospective survey of persistent asthma patients in Kaiser Colorado in 2011-2012. Patients received a survey 3 times in one year, which included the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and questions on exacerbations. Self-reported exacerbations were compared to actual oral corticosteroid (OCS) use. Regression analyses examined the association of control (ACQ-5 scores) and exacerbations with healthcare expenditures, controlling for sociodemographics and smoking. Analyses of expenditures used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with log-link. RESULTS: 2681 individuals completed at least one survey; 1799 completed all three. ACQ-5 scores were associated with higher all-cause and asthma-specific expenditures across all categories of costs (medical, outpatient, ER, pharmacy) except for inpatient expenditures. Each 1-point increase in the ACQ-5 score (i.e., worse control) was associated with a corresponding increase in all-cause annual healthcare and asthma-specific expenditures of $1443 and $927 ($US 2013). Asthma exacerbations with documented OCS use were associated with an increase of $3014 and $1626 over 4 months, while self-reported exacerbations were $713 and $506. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that poor asthma control and exacerbations are strongly associated with higher healthcare expenditures. Results also confirm that collection of validated measures of control such as the ACQ-5 may provide valuable information toward improving clinical and economic outcomes.

The Contemporary Safety and Effectiveness of Lower Extremity Bypass Surgery and Peripheral Endovascular Interventions in the Treatment of Symptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for symptomatic peripheral artery disease includes lower extremity bypass surgery (LEB) and peripheral endovascular interventions (PVIs); however, limited comparative effectiveness data exist between the 2 therapies. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of LEB and PVI in patients with symptomatic claudication and critical limb ischemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a community-based clinical registry at 2 large integrated healthcare delivery systems, we compared 883 patients undergoing PVI and 975 patients undergoing LEB between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2011. Rates of target lesion revascularization were greater for PVI than for LEB in patients presenting with claudication (12.3±2.7% and 19.0±3.5% at 1 and 3 years versus 5.2±2.4% and 8.3±3.1%, log-rank P<0.001) and critical limb ischemia (19.1±4.8% and 31.6±6.3% at 1 and 3 years versus 10.8±2.5% and 16.0±3.2%, log-rank P<0.001). However, in comparison with PVI, LEB was associated with increased rates of complications up to 30 days following the procedure (37.1% versus 11.9%, P<0.001). There were no differences in amputation rates between the 2 groups. Findings remained consistent in sensitivity analyses by using propensity methods to account for treatment selection. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, in comparison with LEB, PVI was associated with fewer 30-day procedural complications, higher revascularization rates at 1 and 3 years, and no difference in subsequent amputations.

Exploring asthma control cutoffs and economic outcomes using the Asthma Control Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the effect of worsening asthma control on expenditures and health resource utilization (HRU) is important. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association of economic outcomes with asthma control cutoffs and longitudinal changes on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 5 (ACQ-5). METHODS: The Observational Study of Asthma Control and Outcomes was a survey of patients with persistent asthma who were patients of Kaiser Colorado, including claims-based HRU. Patients completed the ACQ-5 three times during 1 year between April 2011 and June 2012. The ACQ-5 cutoffs that indicated control were assessed in cross-sectional analyses. Longitudinal changes in control were explored: controlled (ACQ-5 score <0.75), indeterminate (ACQ-5 score 0.75 to <1.5), not well controlled (ACQ-5 score 1.5 to <3.0), and very poorly controlled (ACQ-5 score ≥3.0). Analyses used generalized linear models with log link (expenditures) and negative binomial regression (HRU). RESULTS: There were 6,666 completed surveys (1,799 individuals completed all 3 survey waves). In the cross-sectional analyses, compared with an ACQ-5 score less than 0.5, individuals with ACQ-5 scores of 4 to 4.5 incurred 7.2 times the number of oral corticosteroid prescriptions, 4.3 times the number of emergency department visits, 6 times the number of inpatient visits, 10.4 times the number of asthma-specific emergency department visits, 4.58 times the number of asthma-specific inpatient visits, and $2,892 more in all-cause and $1,877 in asthma-specific expenditures during 4 months. In the longitudinal change analyses, individuals who improved from an ACQ-5 of 3.0 or greater to less than 0.75 incurred $6,023 less in asthma-specific expenditures during 4 months than those remaining at an ACQ-5 score of 3.0 or higher. CONCLUSION: Results provide preliminary economic data on possible control cutoffs for the ACQ-5. Improving asthma control over time may result in significant savings that may justify financial investments designed to improve control.

Decision-Making Experiences of Patients with Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: When patients are not adequately engaged in decision making, they may be at risk of decision regret. Our objective was to explore patients' perceptions of their decision-making experiences related to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). METHODS: Cross-sectional, mailed survey of 412 patients who received an ICD without cardiac resynchronization therapy for any indication between 2006 and 2009. Patients were asked about decision participation and decision regret. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with ICDs responded (72% response rate). Overall, 79% reported that they were as involved in the decision as they wanted. However, 28% reported that they were not told of the option of not getting an ICD and 37% did not remember being asked if they wanted an ICD. In total, 19% reported not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. Those who did not want the ICD were younger (<65 years; 74% vs 43%, P < 0.001), had higher decision regret (31/100 vs 11/100, P < 0.001), and reported less participation in decision making (the doctor "totally" made the decision, 9% vs 3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A considerable number of ICD recipients recalled not wanting their ICD at the time of implantation. While these findings may be prone to recall bias, they likely identify opportunities to improve ICD decision making.

Measurement of utility in asthma: evidence indicating that generic instruments may miss clinically important changes.

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of preference-based health-related quality of life is important in determining the value of asthma interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine the sensitivity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D and the AQL-5D to differences in asthma control measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ-5). METHODS: The Observational Study of Asthma Control and Outcomes was a prospective survey of persistent asthma patients ≥12 years old in Kaiser Colorado. Patients received a survey three times in 1 year, including the ACQ-5, AQL-5D and EQ-5D-3L (including VAS). Censored Least Absolute Deviations (CLAD) and logistic regression were used, controlling for sociodemographics and smoking. RESULTS: There were 6666 completed surveys (1799 individuals completed all three survey waves). After controlling for covariates, each one-point increase in ACQ-5 was associated with a decrease of 0.066, 0.058, 0.074 and 6.12 in EQ-5D(US), EQ-5D(UK), AQL-5D and VAS scores. Uncontrolled asthma (ACQ-5 > 1.5) was associated with a decrease of 0.15, 0.17, 0.11 and 10, respectively (vs. ACQ ≤ 1.5). AQL-5D scores were statistically significantly different across categories of ACQ-5 scores of 0.5 (the minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), while EQ-5D scores were not significant across most categories. The AQL-5D appeared more robust to changes in control over time (responsiveness) compared to EQ-5D-3L. CONCLUSION: The AQL-5D appears more responsive to changes in asthma control over time and more sensitive to detecting differences corresponding to the ACQ-5 MCID than the EQ-5D-3L. Using the EQ-5D-3L without an asthma-specific measure such as the AQL-5D may miss clinically important changes in asthma control.

Association of neighborhood characteristics with bystander-initiated CPR.

BACKGROUND: For persons who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the probability of receiving bystander-initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may be influenced by neighborhood characteristics. METHODS: We analyzed surveillance data prospectively submitted from 29 U.S. sites to the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival between October 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009. The neighborhood in which each cardiac arrest occurred was determined from census-tract data. We classified neighborhoods as high-income or low-income on the basis of a median household income threshold of $40,000 and as white or black if more than 80% of the census tract was predominantly of one race. Neighborhoods without a predominant racial composition were classified as integrated. We analyzed the relationship between the median income and racial composition of a neighborhood and the performance of bystander-initiated CPR. RESULTS: Among 14,225 patients with cardiac arrest, bystander-initiated CPR was provided to 4068 (28.6%). As compared with patients who had a cardiac arrest in high-income white neighborhoods, those in low-income black neighborhoods were less likely to receive bystander-initiated CPR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.58). The same was true of patients with cardiac arrest in neighborhoods characterized as low-income white (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.82), low-income integrated (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.70), and high-income black (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.86). The odds ratio for bystander-initiated CPR in high-income integrated neighborhoods (1.03; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.65) was similar to that for high-income white neighborhoods. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort study, we found that patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in low-income black neighborhoods were less likely to receive bystander-initiated CPR than those in high-income white neighborhoods. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.).

Anatomic runoff score predicts cardiovascular outcomes in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease undergoing revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Although the presence, extent, and severity of obstruction in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LE PAD) affect their functional status, quality of life, and treatment, it is not known if these factors are associated with future cardiovascular events. We empirically created an anatomic runoff score (ARS) to approximate the burden of LE PAD and determined its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated all patients with LE PAD and bilateral angiography undergoing revascularization in a community-based clinical study. Primary clinical outcomes of interest were (1) a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke and (2) amputation-free survival. Cox proportional hazards models were created to identify predictors of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We evaluated 908 patients undergoing angiography, and a total of 260 (28.0%) patients reached the composite end point (45 MI, 63 stroke, and 152 death) during the study period. Anatomic runoff score ranged from 0 to 15 (mean 4.7; SD 2.5) with higher scores indicating a higher burden of disease, and an optimal cutpoint analysis classified patients into low ARS (<5) and high ARS (≥5). The unadjusted rates of the primary composite end point and amputation-free survival were nearly 2-fold higher in patients with a high ARS when compared with patients with a low ARS. The most significant predictors of the composite end point (death/MI/stroke) were age (δ 10 years; hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; CI 1.32-1.78; P < .001), diabetes mellitus (HR 1.65; CI 1.26-2.18; P < .001), glomerular filtration rate <30 (HR 2.23; CI 1.44-3.44; P < .001), statin use (HR 0.66; CI 0.48-0.88; P < .001), and ARS (δ 2 points; HR 1.21; CI 1.08-1.35; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for clinical factors, the LE PAD ARS was an independent predictor of future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a broadly representative patient population undergoing revascularization for symptomatic PAD. A clinically useful anatomic scoring system, if validated, may assist clinicians in risk stratification during the course of clinical decision making.

Recidivism to uncontrolled blood pressure in patients with previously controlled hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Control of hypertension has improved nationally with focus on identifying and treating elevated blood pressures (BPs) to guideline recommended levels. However, once BP control is achieved, the frequency in which BP falls out of control and the factors associated with BP recidivism is unknown. In this retrospective cohort study conducted at 2 large, integrated health care systems we sought to examine rates and predictors of BP recidivism in adults with controlled hypertension. No change for methods, results and conclusion. METHODS: Patients with a prior diagnosis of hypertension based on a combination of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes, receipt of antihypertensive medications, and/or elevated BP readings were eligible to be included. We defined controlled hypertension as normotensive BP readings (<140/90 mmHg or <130/80 mmHg in those with diabetes) at 2 consecutive primary care visits. We then followed up patients for BP recidivism defined by the date of the second of 2 consecutive BP readings >140/90 mmHg (>130/80 mmHg for diabetes or chronic kidney disease) during a median follow-up period of 16.6 months. Cox proportional hazards regression assessed the association between patient characteristics, comorbidities, medication adherence, and provider medication management with time to BP recidivism. RESULTS: A total of 23,321 patients with controlled hypertension were included in this study. The proportion of patients with hypertension recidivism was 24.1% over the 16.6-month study period. For those with BP recidivism, the median time to relapse was 7.3 months. In multivariate analysis, those with diabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 3.99, CI 3.67-4.33), high normal baseline BP (for systolic BP HR 1.03, CI 1.03-1.04), or low antihypertensive medication adherence (HR 1.20, CI 1.11-1.29) had significantly higher rates of hypertension recidivism. Limitations of this work include demographics of our patient sample, which may not reflect other communities in addition to the intrinsic limitations of office-based BP measurements. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive recidivism occurs in a significant portion of patients with previously well-controlled BP and accounts for a substantial fraction of patients with poorly controlled hypertension. Systematic identification of those most at risk for recidivism and implementation of strategies to minimize hypertension recidivism may improve overall levels of BP control and hypertension-related quality measures.

Barriers to calling 911 and learning and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation for residents of primarily Latino, high-risk neighborhoods in Denver, Colorado.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Individuals in neighborhoods composed of minority and lower socioeconomic status populations are more likely to have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest event, less likely to have bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed, and less likely to survive. Latino cardiac arrest victims are 30% less likely than whites to have bystander CPR performed. The goal of this study is to identify barriers and facilitators to calling 911, and learning and performing CPR in 5 low-income, Latino neighborhoods in Denver, CO. METHODS: Six focus groups and 9 key informant interviews were conducted in Denver during the summer of 2012. Purposeful and snowball sampling, conducted by community liaisons, was used to recruit participants. Two reviewers analyzed the data to identify recurrent and unifying themes. A qualitative content analysis was used with a 5-stage iterative process to analyze each transcript. RESULTS: Six key barriers to calling 911 were identified: fear of becoming involved because of distrust of law enforcement, financial, immigration status, lack of recognition of cardiac arrest event, language, and violence. Seven cultural barriers were identified that may preclude performance of bystander CPR: age, sex, immigration status, language, racism, strangers, and fear of touching someone. Participants suggested that increasing availability of tailored education in Spanish, increasing the number of bilingual 911 dispatchers, and policy-level changes, including CPR as a requirement for graduation and strengthening Good Samaritan laws, may serve as potential facilitators in increasing the provision of bystander CPR. CONCLUSION: Distrust of law enforcement, language concerns, lack of recognition of cardiac arrest, and financial issues must be addressed when community-based CPR educational programs for Latinos are implemented.