Effect of Gamification, Financial Incentives, or Both to Increase Physical Activity Among Patients at High Risk of Cardiovascular Events: The BE ACTIVE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with a lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but few individuals achieve guideline-recommended levels of physical activity. Strategies informed by behavioral economics increase physical activity, but their longer-term effectiveness is uncertain. We sought to determine the effect of behaviorally designed gamification, loss-framed financial incentives, or their combination on physical activity compared with attention control over 12-month intervention and 6-month postintervention follow-up periods. METHODS: Between May 2019 and January 2024, participants with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death of ≥7.5% by the Pooled Cohort equation were enrolled in a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. Participants received a wearable device to track daily steps, established a baseline, selected a step goal increase, and were randomly assigned to control (n=151), behaviorally designed gamification (n=304), loss-framed financial incentives (n=302), or gamification+financial incentives (n=305). The primary outcome of the trial was the change in mean daily steps from baseline through the 12-month intervention period. RESULTS: A total of 1062 patients (mean±SD age, 67±8; 61% female; 31% non-White) were enrolled. Compared with control subjects, participants had significantly greater increases in mean daily steps from baseline during the 12-month intervention in the gamification arm (adjusted difference, 538.0 [95% CI, 186.2-889.9]; P=0.0027), financial incentives arm (adjusted difference, 491.8 [95% CI, 139.6-844.1]; P=0.0062), and gamification+financial incentives arm (adjusted difference, 868.0 [95% CI, 516.3-1219.7]; P<0.0001). During the 6-month follow-up, physical activity remained significantly greater in the gamification+financial incentives arm than in the control arm (adjusted difference, 576.2 [95% CI, 198.5-954]; P=0.0028), but it was not significantly greater in the gamification (adjusted difference, 459.8 [95% CI, 82.0-837.6]; P=0.0171) or financial incentives (adjusted difference, 327.9 [95% CI, -50.2 to 706]; P=0.09) arms after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Behaviorally designed gamification, loss-framed financial incentives, and the combination of both increased physical activity compared with control over a 12-month intervention period, with the largest effect in gamification+financial incentives. These interventions could be a useful component of strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03911141.

COVID-19 Thrombotic Complications and Therapeutic Strategies.

Shortly after the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in late 2019, clinicians rapidly recognized an apparent association between the disease and both arterial and venous thrombotic complications, which was confirmed in epidemiologic studies. Based on these data, hospitals empirically developed and implemented protocols with different strategies for anticoagulation of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Subsequent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) clarified the role of anticoagulation in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and recently discharged from the hospital. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of thrombosis in patients with COVID-19, observational comparative effectiveness analyses that provided hints of a benefit from anticoagulation, and finally the RCTs that established which patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation. These RCTs have demonstrated that hospitalized, noncritically ill patients with COVID-19 benefit from treatment-dose anticoagulation, but patients who are hospitalized and critically ill, discharged from the hospital, or not hospitalized do not benefit.

Gamification-augmented home-based exercise for peripheral artery disease: Rationale and design of the GAMEPAD Study.

BACKGROUND: Supervised exercise therapy improves walking performance, functional capacity, and quality of life in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, few patients with PAD are enrolled in supervised exercise programs, and there are a number of logistical and financial barriers to their participation. A home-based walking intervention is likely to be more accessible to patients with PAD, but no fully home-based walking program has demonstrated efficacy. Concepts from behavioral economics have been used to design scalable interventions that increase daily physical activity in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, but whether a similar program would be effective in patients with PAD is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: GAMEPAD (NCT04536012) is a pragmatic, virtual, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a gamification strategy informed by concepts from behavioral economics to increase daily physical activity in patients with PAD who are seen in cardiology and vascular surgery clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Patients are contacted by email or text message, and complete enrollment and informed consent on the Penn Way to Health online platform. A GAMEPAD substudy will evaluate the effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out framing when approaching patients for study participation. Patients are then provided with a wearable fitness tracker, establish a baseline daily step count, set a goal to increase daily step count by 33%-50%, and are randomized 1:1 to the gamification or control arms. Interventions continue for 16 weeks, including a 4-week period during which goal step count is gradually increased in the gamification arm, with follow-up for an additional 8 weeks to evaluate the durability of behavior change. The trial has met its enrollment goal of 102 participants, with a primary endpoint of change from baseline in daily steps over the 16-week intervention period. Key secondary endpoints include change from baseline in daily steps over the 8-week postintervention follow-up period and changes in patient-reported measures of PAD symptoms and quality of life over the intervention and follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: GAMEPAD is a virtual, pragmatic randomized clinical trial of a novel, fully home-based walking intervention informed by concepts from behavioral economics to increase physical activity and PAD-specific quality of life in patients with PAD. Its results will have important implications for the application of behavioral economic concepts to scalable home-based strategies to promote physical activity in patients with PAD and other disease processes where physical activity is limited by exertional symptoms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT04536012.

Two randomized controlled trials of nudges to encourage referrals to centralized pharmacy services for evidence-based statin initiation in high-risk patients: Rationale and design of the SUPER LIPID program.

BACKGROUND: In patients with or at risk for atherosclerotic vascular disease, statins reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events, but the majority of US adults with an indication for statin therapy are not prescribed statins at guideline-recommended intensity. Clinicians' limited time to address preventative care issues is cited as one factor contributing to gaps in statin prescribing. Centralized pharmacy services can fulfill a strategic role for population health management through outreach, education, and statin prescribing for patients at elevated ASCVD risk, but best practices for optimizing referrals of appropriate patients are unknown. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: SUPER LIPID (NCT05537064) is a program consisting of two pragmatic clinical trials testing the effect of nudges in increasing referrals of appropriate patients to a centralized pharmacy service for lipid management, conducted within 11 primary care practices in a large community health system. In both trials, patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an assigned primary care provider (PCP) in a participating practice and were not prescribed a high- or moderate-intensity statin despite an indication, identified via an electronic health record (EHR) algorithm. Trial #1 was a stepped wedge trial, conducted at a single practice with randomization at the PCP level, of an interruptive EHR message that appeared during eligible patients' visits and facilitated referral to the pharmacy service. For the first 3 months, no PCPs received the message; for the second 3 months, half were randomly selected to receive the message; and for the last 3 months, all PCPs received the message. Trial #2 was a cluster-randomized trial conducted at 10 practices, with randomization at the practice level. Practices were randomized to usual care or to have eligible patients automatically referred to centralized pharmacy services via a referral order placed in PCPs EHR inboxes for co-signature. In both trials, when a patient was referred to centralized pharmacy services, a pharmacist reviewed the patient's chart, contacted the patient, and initiated statin therapy if the patient agreed. The primary endpoint of both trials was the proportion of patients prescribed a statin; secondary endpoints include the proportion of patients prescribed a statin at guideline-recommended intensity, the proportion of patients filling a statin prescription, and serum low-density lipoprotein level. CONCLUSIONS: SUPER LIPID is a pair of pragmatic clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of two strategies to encourage referral of appropriate patients to a centralized pharmacy service for lipid management. The trial results will develop the evidence base for simple, scalable, EHR-based strategies to integrate clinical pharmacists into population health management and increase appropriate statin prescribing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT05537064.

Association between racial residential segregation and Black-White disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality.

BACKGROUND: Racial residential segregation is associated with racial health inequities, but it is unclear if segregation may exacerbate Black-White disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. This study aimed to assess associations between Black-White residential segregation, CVD mortality rates among non-Hispanic (NH) Black and NH White populations, and Black-White disparities in CVD mortality. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed Black-White residential segregation, as measured by county-level interaction index, of US counties, county-level CVD mortality among NH White and NH black adults aged 25 years and older, and county-level Black-White disparities in CVD mortality in years 2014 to 2017. Age-adjusted, county-level NH Black CVD mortality rates and NH White cardiovascular disease mortality rates, as well as group-level relative risk ratios for Black-White cardiovascular disease mortality, were calculated. Sequential generalized linear models adjusted for county-level socioeconomic and neighborhood factors were used to estimate associations between residential segregation and cardiovascular mortality rates among NH Black and NH White populations. Relative risk ratio tests were used to compare Black-White disparities in the most segregated counties to disparities in the least segregated counties. RESULTS: We included 1,286 counties with ≥5% Black populations in the main analysis. Among adults aged ≥25 years, there were 2,611,560 and 408,429 CVD deaths among NH White and NH Black individuals, respectively. In the unadjusted model, counties in the highest tertile of segregation had 9% higher (95% CI, 1%-20% higher, P = .04) rates of NH Black CVD mortality than counties in the lowest tertile of segregation. In the multivariable adjusted model, the most segregated counties had 15% higher (95% CI, 0.5% to 38% higher, P = .04) rates of NH Black CVD mortality than the least segregated counties. In the most segregated counties, NH Black individuals were 33% more likely to die of CVD than NH White individuals (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.33, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Counties with increased Black-White residential segregation have higher rates of NH Black CVD mortality and larger Black-White disparities in CVD mortality. Identifying the causal mechanisms through which racial residential segregation widens disparities in CVD mortality requires further study.

A randomized controlled trial of gamification, financial incentives, or both to increase physical activity among patients with elevated risk for cardiovascular disease: rationale and design of the be active study.

BACKGROUND: Higher levels of physical activity are associated with improvements in cardiovascular health, and consensus guidelines recommend that individuals with or at risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) participate in regular physical activity. However, most adults do not achieve recommended levels of physical activity. Concepts from behavioral economics have been used to design scalable interventions that increase physical activity over short time periods, but the longer-term efficacy of these strategies is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: BE ACTIVE (NCT03911141) is a pragmatic, virtual, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of 3 strategies informed by behavioral economic concepts to increase daily physical activity in patients with established ASCVD or 10-year ASCVD risk > 7.5% who are seen in primary care and cardiology clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System. Patients are contacted by email or text message, and complete enrollment and informed consent on the Penn Way to Health online platform. Patients are then provided with a wearable fitness tracker, establish a baseline daily step count, set a goal to increase daily step count by 33% to 50%, and are randomized 1:2:2:2 to control, gamification, financial incentives, or both gamification and financial incentives. Interventions continue for 12 months, with follow-up for an additional 6 months to evaluate the durability of behavior change. The trial has met its enrollment goal of 1050 participants, with a primary endpoint of change from baseline in daily steps over the 12-month intervention period. Key secondary endpoints include change from baseline in daily steps over the 6-month post-intervention follow-up period and change in moderate to vigorous physical activity over the intervention and follow-up periods. If the interventions prove effective, their effects on life expectancy will be compared with their costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: BE ACTIVE is a virtual, pragmatic randomized clinical trial powered to demonstrate whether gamification, financial incentives, or both are superior to attention control in increasing physical activity. Its results will have important implications for strategies to promote physical activity in patients with or at risk for ASCVD, as well as for the design and implementation of pragmatic virtual clinical trials within health systems.

Feasibility and outcomes from using a commitment device and text message reminders to increase adherence to time-restricted eating: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is strongly associated with cardiovascular disease, particularly through its effects on blood pressure. Though maintaining a negative caloric balance leads to weight loss, many patients struggle to adhere to low calorie diets over the long term. Time-restricted eating, a subtype of intermittent fasting (IF), may be an easier dietary pattern for patients to initiate and maintain. We tested the feasibility of a bidirectional texting strategy to help patients with obesity and hypertension initiate and maintain time-restricted eating, and whether a commitment device, a pledge to behave in a certain way in the future while making nonadherence costlier, would increase adherence beyond bidirectional texting. METHODS: Patients with obesity and hypertension seen in cardiology clinics were provided education on time-restricted eating and randomized to a commitment device versus attention control. Attention control consisted of daily bidirectional text messages asking whether patients adhered to IF and weekly text messages asking participants to send their weight and blood pressure. The commitment device involved the same text messages as attention control, plus a commitment contract, setting of implementation intentions with respect to details of time-restricted eating, and involvement of a support partner who received weekly updates on the participant's adherence to time-restricted eating. The intervention lasted 12 weeks, followed by a 6-week follow-up period. The primary outcome was days per week adherent to time-restricted eating over the 18-week study period, measured by daily self-report. We also compared change from baseline weight and blood pressure between randomized groups. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients were randomized and started the study-20 to attention control and 17 to the commitment device. Mean age was 60 years old, and mean BMI was 38.4 kg/m2. Over the 18-week study period, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) number of days per week adherent to time-restricted eating was 4.7 ± 1.9 in the control arm and 5.4 ± 1.7 in the intervention arm (P = .23). Mean systolic blood pressure declined from 135 to 128 mm Hg among all participants (P = .006) with no difference between groups in change from baseline blood pressure (P = .74). Weight decreased from 229 to 223 pounds among all participants (P = .25) with no significant difference between groups in change from baseline weight (P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: A bidirectional texting strategy was feasible for helping patients with obesity and hypertension initiate and adhere to time-restricted eating. Adding a commitment device to bidirectional texting did not increase adherence to time-restricted eating compared with attention control, nor were there significant between group changes in blood pressure or weight, but these comparisons were underpowered. A larger randomized trial of the effect of this scalable intervention, compared with usual care, on blood pressure and weight among patients with obesity and hypertension is warranted. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT04836312.

Independence of clinical events committees: A consensus statement from clinical research organizations.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging. METHODS: This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance. RESULTS: An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.

Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with valvular heart disease.

The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban have transformed the management of atrial fibrillation (AF), but are only approved by regulatory authorities for stroke prophylaxis in patients with so-called "non-valvular AF." This terminology has spawned confusion about which patients with valvular heart disease benefit from NOACs and which should be treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) instead. Patients with valvular heart disease other than mechanical prosthetic valves or severe mitral stenosis (including those with bioprosthetic valves) were included in pivotal trials demonstrating the benefit of NOACs over VKAs, and consensus guidelines recommend NOACs over VKAs in these patients. Subsequent devoted randomized controlled trials in patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves, including transcatheter valves, have confirmed the safety of NOACs in this population. In patients with rheumatic mitral stenosis, observational studies indicate that NOACs may be safe and effective, but randomized controlled trials are ongoing. By contrast, a randomized controlled trial showed that dabigatran is harmful in patients with mechanical prosthetic mitral valves; however, these data may not extrapolate to patients with mechanical valve prostheses in other locations or to other NOACs, and randomized controlled trials are ongoing. In this review, we discuss these data in greater depth, and make recommendations for the use of NOACs in patients with valvular heart disease.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) increases a patient's stroke risk four- to five-fold. Anticoagulation with the vitamin K antagonist (VKA) warfarin reduces the risk of stroke by 67%, but warfarin carries a significant risk of major bleeding and has unpredictable pharmacodynamics with a narrow therapeutic window, necessitating frequent monitoring of its anticoagulant effect. The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban provide more predictable anticoagulant activity than warfarin with a lower risk of major bleeding, and each is noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke. All have earned regulatory approval in the past eight years. At least one of the NOACs is approved for use in all patients with AF, except those with mechanical valves and rheumatic mitral valve disease, for whom warfarin remains the only option. Recent clinical trials have shown that antithrombotic regimens including NOACs are safe and effective in patients with AF who need potent antiplatelet therapy.

Association between intensive care unit utilization for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and patient experience.

Routine intensive care unit (ICU) utilization for patients with initially stable non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is not associated with improved short- or long-term patient outcomes; however, the association with patient experience has not been reported. Using Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems patient survey data linked to ICU use data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, we found no association between hospital-level ICU utilization and metrics of patient experience, including communication, staff responsiveness, and overall satisfaction.

Oral anticoagulant use in patients with atrial fibrillation and mitral valve repair.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who have undergone mitral valve repair are at risk for thromboembolic strokes. Prior to 2019, only vitamin K antagonists were recommended for patients with AF who had undergone mitral valve repair despite the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in 2010. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the use of anticoagulants in patients with AF who underwent surgical mitral valve repair (sMVR) or transcatheter mitral valve repair (tMVR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with AF undergoing sMVR or tMVR between 04/2014 and 12/2018 using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database. We identified anticoagulants prescribed within 90 days of discharge from hospitalization. RESULTS: Overall, 1997 patients with AF underwent valve repair: 1560 underwent sMVR, and 437 underwent tMVR. The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score among all patients was 4.1 (SD 1.9). The overall use of anticoagulation was unchanged between 2014 (72.2%) and 2018 (70.0%) (P = .49). Among patients who underwent sMVR or tMVR between April 2014 and December 2018, the use of VKA therapy decreased from 62.9% to 32.1% (P < .01 for trend) and the use of DOACs increased from 12.4% to 37.3% (P < .01 for trend). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with AF who underwent sMVR or tMVR between 2014 and 2018, roughly 30% of patients were not treated with any anticoagulant within 90 days of discharge, despite an elevated stroke risk in the cohort. The rate of DOAC use increased steadily over the study period but did not significantly increase the rate of overall anticoagulant use in this high-risk cohort.

Relationship Between Operator Volume and Long-Term Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer-term outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients ≥65 years of age. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (<50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high- (>100) volume operators. One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACEs; defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction, or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met, and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, 723 644 PCI procedures were performed by 8936 operators: 2553 high-, 2878 intermediate-, and 3505 low-volume operators. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI, and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1-year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( P=0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96 for intermediate versus low; odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83 for high versus low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACEs, death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio for MACEs, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01 for intermediate versus low; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04 for high versus low). CONCLUSIONS: Unadjusted 1-year outcomes after PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in postdischarge MACEs.

Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Modern cardiometabolic clinical trials often include cardiovascular death as a component of a composite primary outcome, requiring central adjudication by a clinical events committee to classify cause of death. However, sometimes the cause of death cannot be determined from available data. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that this circumstance should occur only rarely, but its prevalence has not been formally assessed. METHODS: Data from 9 global clinical trials (2009-2017) with long-term follow-up and blinded, centrally adjudicated cause of death were used to calculate the proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or undetermined causes by therapeutic area (diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus, stable atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome), region of patient enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. Patient- and trial-level variables associated with undetermined cause of death were identified using a logistic model. RESULTS: Across 127 049 enrolled participants from 9 trials, there were 9259 centrally adjudicated deaths: 5012 (54.1%) attributable to cardiovascular causes, 2800 (30.2%) attributable to noncardiovascular causes, and 1447 (15.6%) attributable to undetermined causes. There was variability in the proportion of deaths ascribed to undetermined causes by trial therapeutic area, region of enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. On multivariable analysis, acute coronary syndrome or atrial fibrillation trial (versus atherosclerotic vascular disease or diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus), longer time from enrollment to death, more recent trial manuscript publication year, enrollment in North America (versus Western Europe), female sex, and older age were associated with greater likelihood of death of undetermined cause. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 cardiometabolic clinical trials with long-term follow-up, approximately 16% of deaths had undetermined causes. This provides a baseline for quality assessment of clinical trials and informs operational efforts to potentially reduce the frequency of undetermined deaths in future clinical research.

Levels of evidence supporting drug, device, and other recommendations in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.

Clinical guideline documents reflect the evidence supporting clinical practice, but few recommendations in cardiovascular guidelines are supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the highest level of evidence. Incentives for generating evidence from RCTs differ by topic of guideline recommendation, and it is uncertain whether evidence supporting guideline recommendations differs based on the topic of the recommendation. METHODS: We abstracted recommendation statements from current ACC/AHA guideline documents (2008-2019). Two reviewers independently characterized each statement into categories based on its primary topic: pharmaceutical, device, non-invasive or minimally invasive therapeutic procedure, surgery, diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, laboratory, care strategies, health services or policy, history/physical examination, lifestyle or counseling. We determined the number and proportion of recommendations in each category characterized as level of evidence (LOE) A (supported by multiple RCTs), B (supported by a single RCT or observational data), and C (supported by expert opinion or limited data). RESULTS: Of 2934 recommendations from 29 clinical guideline documents, 784 (26.7%) were primarily about pharmaceuticals, 503 (17.1%) diagnostic invasive procedure or non-invasive imaging, 366 (12.5%) devices, 349 (11.9%) care strategies, 274 (9.3%) surgery, 216 (7.4%) therapeutic procedures, 162 (5.5%) lifestyle interventions or counseling, 160 (5.5%) health services, care delivery, or policy, 83 (2.8%) laboratory, and 37 (1.3%) elements of the history and physical. Across all recommendations, 257 (8.8%) were characterized as LOE A, with considerable variability by topic. 25.9% of lifestyle/counseling recommendations, 16.9% of lab recommendations, and 14.7% of drug recommendations were classified as LOE A, but <8% of recommendations in all other categories, including 5.5% of device recommendations, 6.0% of therapeutic procedure recommendations, 2.6% of surgery recommendations, and 5.0% of health services or policy recommendations. CONCLUSION: Less than 10% of current ACC/AHA guideline recommendations are supported by high quality evidence from RCTs, with substantial variability by topic and multiple areas with very few recommendations supported by high-quality evidence. Development and implementation of inexpensive methods for generating a higher volume of RCT evidence to support clinical practice are needed, especially in areas where there are not strong incentives to conduct RCTs.

A Path Forward for Regenerative Medicine.

Although clinical trials of cell-based approaches to cardiovascular disease have yielded some promising results, no cell-based therapy has achieved regulatory approval for a cardiovascular indication. To broadly assess the challenges to regulatory approval and identify strategies to facilitate this goal, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium sponsored a session during the Texas Heart Institute International Symposium on Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine in September 2017. This session convened leaders in cardiovascular regenerative medicine, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, with particular focus on treatments closest to regulatory approval. A goal of the session was to identify barriers to regulatory approval and potential pathways to overcome them. Barriers identified include manufacturing and therapeutic complexity, difficulties identifying an optimal comparator group, limited industry capacity for funding pivotal clinical trials, and challenges to demonstrating efficacy on clinical end points required for regulatory decisions. Strategies to overcome these barriers include precompetitive development of a cell therapy registry network to enable dual-purposing of clinical data as part of pragmatic clinical trial design, development of standardized terminology for product activity and end points to facilitate this registry, use of innovative statistical methods and quality of life or functional end points to supplement outcomes such as death or heart failure hospitalization and reduce sample size, involvement of patients in determining the research agenda, and use of the Food and Drug Administration's new Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation to facilitate early discussion with regulatory authorities when planning development pathways.

Current landscape of hybrid revascularization: A report from the NCDR CathPCI Registry.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid revascularization, combining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), may be used differently across hospitals. How outcomes compare with multivessel PCI is unknown. METHODS: We studied hybrid revascularization use in patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry from 2009 to 2017 who underwent PCI for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) at 711 hospitals, excluding patients with prior CABG, acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, emergency/salvage CABG, or PCI without stent placement. In-hospital mortality associated with hybrid revascularization versus multivessel PCI was compared using a multivariable logistic model. RESULTS: Among 775,000 patients with multivessel CAD, 1,126 (0.2%) underwent hybrid revascularization and 256,865 (33%) were treated with multivessel PCI. Although 358 (50.4%) hospitals performed hybrid revascularizations, most (97.3%) performed <1 per year. Most patients (68.7%) treated with hybrid revascularization underwent CABG after PCI; only 79.4% of these patients were discharged on P2Y12 inhibitors. Patients who underwent hybrid revascularization were younger and more likely to have significant left main or proximal left anterior descending disease. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates were higher among patients treated with hybrid revascularization than multivessel PCI (1.5% vs 0.9%, P = .02), a difference that was not significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio = 1.54, 95% CI = 0.92-2.59). CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid revascularization remains an infrequently used treatment modality for multivessel CAD. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was no different between hybrid revascularization and multivessel PCI; however, patients who underwent hybrid revascularization were less likely to be discharged on P2Y12 inhibitor therapy despite stent implantation.

Hospital participation in clinical trials for patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the proportion of hospitals in the United States that offer clinical trial enrollment opportunities and how patient outcomes differ between hospitals that do and do not participate in clinical trials. METHODS: In the nationwide Chest Pain-MI registry, we described the proportion of hospitals that enrolled patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) in clinical trials from 2009 to 2014. Hospital-level adherence to every eligible MI performance measure was compared between hospitals that did and did not enroll patients in clinical trials. Using linked Medicare data, we also compared 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: death, MI, heart failure, or stroke) among patients ≥65 years old treated at trial versus nontrial hospitals. RESULTS: Among 766 hospitals, 430 (56.1%) enrolled ≥1 MI patient in a clinical trial during the study period, but the proportion of hospitals enrolling patients in clinical trials declined from 36.8% in 2009 to 26.6% in 2014. Complete adherence to performance measures was delivered to a greater proportion of patients at trial hospitals than nontrial hospitals (72.6% vs 64.9%, P < .001; adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.12). One-year MACE rates were also lower for trial hospitals (adjusted HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals are becoming less likely to engage in clinical trials for patients with MI. Patients admitted to hospitals that participated in clinical trials more often received guideline-adherent care and had better long-term outcomes.

Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: re-defining 'real-world data' within the broader data universe.

Real-world data (RWD) has been defined as data generated outside of traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Though RWD has received increasing attention from regulatory authorities and professional societies, dividing evidence into that derived from 'real-world' vs. 'non-real-world' sources provides only one element of a much larger framework for evidence evaluation. Evidence should be evaluated on the source of the data, the method of treatment allocation (whether any intervention being evaluated was assigned or simply observed as used in practice) and the context in which the evidence was generated (overall study design). Under this framework, RWD refers only to data source, and a study incorporates RWD when it primarily uses data collected for non-research purposes, such as insurance claims data or the electronic health record, regardless of study design. Separation of study design, data source, and context enables parallel evaluation of two critical elements: (i) whether a study can support claims of causal inference, which can be assured with a high degree of confidence only in studies where patients are assigned treatments by protocol; and (ii) whether the study population and clinical context mirror clinical practice, a strength of observational studies using data from clinical practice or administrative claims. In this review, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of observational and non-observational studies, and studies involving RWD and non-RWD, through the lens of anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Observational studies employing RWD are useful for describing how oral anticoagulants are used in clinical practice, but generally cannot be used to make claims regarding comparative treatment effects. Questions regarding treatment effect generally are best answered through an RCT, and additional pragmatic RCTs are needed to compare different antithrombotic agents for the prevention of thrombotic events in AF.

Levels of Evidence Supporting American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology Guidelines, 2008-2018.

Importance: Clinical decisions are ideally based on evidence generated from multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical outcomes, but historically, few clinical guideline recommendations have been based entirely on this type of evidence. Objective: To determine the class and level of evidence (LOE) supporting current major cardiovascular society guideline recommendations, and changes in LOE over time. Data Sources: Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical guideline documents (2008-2018), as identified on cardiovascular society websites, and immediate predecessors to these guideline documents (1999-2014), as referenced in current guideline documents. Study Selection: Comprehensive guideline documents including recommendations organized by class and LOE. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The number of recommendations and the distribution of LOE (A [supported by data from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT], B [supported by data from observational studies or a single RCT], and C [supported by expert opinion only]) were determined for each guideline document. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of guideline recommendations supported by evidence from multiple RCTs (LOE A). Results: Across 26 current ACC/AHA guidelines (2930 recommendations; median, 121 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 76-155]), 248 recommendations (8.5%) were classified as LOE A, 1465 (50.0%) as LOE B, and 1217 (41.5%) as LOE C. The median proportion of LOE A recommendations was 7.9% (25th-75th percentiles, 0.9%-15.2%). Across 25 current ESC guideline documents (3399 recommendations; median, 130 recommendations per guideline [25th-75th percentiles, 111-154]), 484 recommendations (14.2%) were classified as LOE A, 1053 (31.0%) as LOE B, and 1862 (54.8%) as LOE C. When comparing current guidelines with prior versions, the proportion of recommendations that were LOE A did not increase in either ACC/AHA (median, 9.0% [current] vs 11.7% [prior]) or ESC guidelines (median, 15.1% [current] vs 17.6% [prior]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among recommendations in major cardiovascular society guidelines, only a small percentage were supported by evidence from multiple RCTs or a single, large RCT. This pattern does not appear to have meaningfully improved from 2008 to 2018.