Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function.

Accurate assessment of cardiac function is crucial for the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease1, screening for cardiotoxicity2 and decisions regarding the clinical management of patients with a critical illness3. However, human assessment of cardiac function focuses on a limited sampling of cardiac cycles and has considerable inter-observer variability despite years of training4,5. Here, to overcome this challenge, we present a video-based deep learning algorithm-EchoNet-Dynamic-that surpasses the performance of human experts in the critical tasks of segmenting the left ventricle, estimating ejection fraction and assessing cardiomyopathy. Trained on echocardiogram videos, our model accurately segments the left ventricle with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.92, predicts ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 4.1% and reliably classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (area under the curve of 0.97). In an external dataset from another healthcare system, EchoNet-Dynamic predicts the ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 6.0% and classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an area under the curve of 0.96. Prospective evaluation with repeated human measurements confirms that the model has variance that is comparable to or less than that of human experts. By leveraging information across multiple cardiac cycles, our model can rapidly identify subtle changes in ejection fraction, is more reproducible than human evaluation and lays the foundation for precise diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in real time. As a resource to promote further innovation, we also make publicly available a large dataset of 10,030 annotated echocardiogram videos.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Forecasting the Economic Burden of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in the United States Through 2050: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the economic burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke over the coming decades may inform policy, health system, and community-level interventions for prevention and treatment. METHODS: We used nationally representative health, economic, and demographic data to project health care costs attributable to key cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia) and conditions (coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation) through 2050. The human capital approach was used to estimate productivity losses from morbidity and premature mortality due to cardiovascular conditions. RESULTS: One in 3 US adults received care for a cardiovascular risk factor or condition in 2020. Annual inflation-adjusted (2022 US dollars) health care costs of cardiovascular risk factors are projected to triple between 2020 and 2050, from $400 billion to $1344 billion. For cardiovascular conditions, annual health care costs are projected to almost quadruple, from $393 billion to $1490 billion, and productivity losses are projected to increase by 54%, from $234 billion to $361 billion. Stroke is projected to account for the largest absolute increase in costs. Large relative increases among the Asian American population (497%) and Hispanic American population (489%) reflect the projected increases in the size of these populations. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of cardiovascular risk factors and overt cardiovascular disease in the United States is projected to increase substantially in the coming decades. Development and deployment of cost-effective programs and policies to promote cardiovascular health are urgently needed to rein in costs and to equitably enhance population health.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Healthcare utilization and left ventricular ejection fraction distribution in methamphetamine use associated heart failure hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Although methamphetamine use associated heart failure (MU-HF) is increasing, data on its clinical course are limited due to a preponderance of single center studies and significant heterogeneity in the definition of MU-HF in the published literature. Our objective was to evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) distribution, methamphetamine use treatment engagement and postdischarge healthcare utilization among Veterans with heart failure hospitalization in the department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers for MU-HF versus HF not associated with methamphetamine use (other-HF). METHODS: Observational study including a cohort of Veterans with a first heart failure hospitalization during 2007 - 2020 using data in the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. MU-HF was identified based on the presence of an ICD-code for methamphetmaine use or positive toxicology results within 1-year of heart failure hospitalization. LVEF values entered in the medical record were identified using a validated natural language processing algorithm. Healthcare utilization data was obtained using clinic stop-codes and hosptilaization records. RESULTS: Of 203,005 first-time heart failure hospitlaizations, 4080 were categorized as MU-HF. Median (interquartile range) of LVEF was 30 (20-45) % for MU-HF versus 40 (25-55)% for other-HF (P < .0001). Eighteen percent of MU-HF had LVEF ≥ 50% compared to 28% in other-HF. Discharge against medical advice was higher in MU-HF (8% vs 2%). Among Veterans with MU-HF, post hospital discharge methamphetamine use treatment engagement was low (18% at 30 days post discharge), with higher follow-up in primary care (76% at 30 days). Post discharge emergency department visits (33% versus 22% at 30 days) and rehospitalizations (24% versus 18% at 30 days) were higher in MU-HF compared to other-HF. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of MU-HF hospitalizations are HFrEF, a sizeable minority have HFpEF. This finding has implications for accurate MU-HF classification, treatment, and prognosis. Patients with MU-HF have low addiction treatment receipt and high postdischarge unplanned healthcare utilization. Increasing substance use disorder treatment in this population must be a priority to improve health outcomes. Care-coordination and linkage interventions are urgently needed to increase post-hospitalization addiction treatment and follow-up in an effort to increase evidence-base care and mitigate unplanned healthcare utilization.

Uptake of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors in Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: Insights From the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The use of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in Veterans Affairs (VA) patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) has not been reported previously. METHODS: VA electronic health record data were used to identify patients hospitalized for HF (primary or secondary diagnosis) from 01/2019-11/2022. Patients with SGLT2i allergy, advanced/end-stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) or advanced HF therapies were excluded. We identified factors associated with discharge SGLT2i prescriptions for patients hospitalized due to HF in 2022. We also compared SGLT2i and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription rates. Hospital-level variations in SGLT2i prescriptions were assessed via the median odds ratio. RESULTS: A total of 69,680 patients were hospitalized due to HF; 10.3% were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge (4.4% newly prescribed, 5.9% continued preadmission therapy). SGLT2i prescription increased over time and was higher in patients with HFrEF and primary HF. Among 15,762 patients hospitalized in 2022, SGLT2i prescription was more likely in patients with diabetes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.09-2.47) and ischemic heart disease (aOR 1.14; 95% CI: 1.03-1.26). Patients with increased age (aOR 0.77 per 10 years; 95% CI: 0.73-0.80) and lower systolic blood pressure (aOR 0.94 per 10 mmHg; 95% CI: 0.92-0.96) were less likely to be prescribed SGLT2i, and SGLT2i prescription was not more likely in patients with CKD (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16). The adjusted median odds ratio suggested a 1.8-fold variation in the likelihood that similar patients at 2 random VA sites were prescribed SGLT2i (range 0-21.0%). In patients with EF ≤ 40%, 30.9% were prescribed SGLT2i while 26.9% were prescribed ARNI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: One-tenth of VA patients hospitalized for HF were prescribed SGLT2i at discharge. Opportunities exist to reduce variation in SGLT2i prescription rates across hospitals and to promote its use in patients with CKD and older age.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.

Assessing the Impact of the American Heart Association's Research Portfolio: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A task force composed of American Heart Association (AHA) Research Committee members established processes to measure the performance of the AHA's research portfolio and evaluated key outcomes that are fundamental to the overall success of the program. This report reviews progress that the AHA research program has had in achieving its goals relevant to the research programs in the AHA's research portfolio from 2008 to 2017. Comprehensive performance metrics were identified to assess the impact of AHA funding on researchers' career progress and research outcomes. Metrics included bibliometric analysis (ie, tracking of publications and their impact) and career development measures (ie, subsequent grant funding, intellectual property, faculty appointment/promotion, or industry position). Publication rates ranged from ≈0.5 to 4 publications per year, with a strong correlation between number of publications per year and later career stage. The Field-Weighted Citation Index, a metric of bibliometric impact, was between 1.5 and 3.0 for all programs, indicating that AHA awardee publications had a higher citation impact compared with similar publications. To gain insight into the career progression of AHA awardees, a 2-year postaward survey was distributed. Of the Postdoctoral Fellowship recipient respondents, 72% obtained academic research positions, with the remaining working in industry or government research settings; 72% of those in academic positions obtained additional funding. Among respondents who were Beginning Grant-in-Aid and Scientist Development Grant awardees, 45% received academic promotions and 83% obtained additional funding. Measuring performance of the AHA's research portfolio is critical to ensure that its strategic goals are met and to show the AHA's commitment to high-quality, impactful research.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Association of CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED to frailty and frail outcomes: From the TREAT-AF study.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality associated with high CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores is not specific to atrial fibrillation (AF). Frailty could be an important contributor to this morbidity and mortality while being mechanistically independent from AF. We sought to evaluate the association of stroke and bleeding risk to noncardiovascular frail events and the association of stroke prevention therapy to outcomes in frail patients with AF. METHODS: Using the TREAT-AF (The Retrospective Evaluation and Assessment of Therapies in AF) study from the Veterans Health Administration, we identified patients with newly diagnosed AF from 2004 to 2014. Baseline frailty was identified using a previously validated claims-based index requiring ≥2 of 12 ICD-9 diagnoses. Logistic regressions modeled the association between CHA2DS2-VASc and modified HAS-BLED and frailty. Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate the association between CHA2DS2-VASc and modified HAS-BLED and a composite of noncardiovascular frail events (fractures, urinary tract infections, bacterial pneumonia, or dehydration). We also evaluated the association of oral anticoagulant (OAC) use with stroke, bleeding, and 1-year mortality in frail patients and non-frail patients. RESULTS: In 213,435 patients (age 70 ± 11; 98% male; CHA2DS2-VASc 2.4 ± 1.7) with AF, 8,498 (4%) were frail. CHA2DS2-VASc > 0 and HAS-BLED > 0 were strongly associated with frailty (odds ratio [OR] 13.3 (95% CI: 11.6-15.2) for CHA2DS2-VASc 4+ and OR 13.4 (10.2-17.5) for HAS-BLED 3+). After adjusting for covariates, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED > 0 were associated with higher risk of non-cardiovascular frail events (hazard ratio [HR] 2.1 (95% CI: 2.0-2.2) for CHA2DS2-VASc 4+ and HR 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5) for HAS-BLED 3+). In frail patients, OAC use was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year mortality (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.72-0.94, P = .0031) but did not reach significance for risk of stroke (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.55-1.18, P = .26) or major bleeding (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.93-1.25, P = .34). CONCLUSIONS: High CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores are strongly associated with frailty. However, in frail patients, OAC use was associated with reduction in 1-year mortality. For this challenging clinical population with competing risks of frailty and frail events, focused prospective studies are needed to support clinical decision-making. Until then, careful evaluation of frailty should inform shared decision-making.

The patient-reported outcome measurement in heart failure clinic trial: Rationale and methods of the PRO-HF trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention. STUDY DESIGN: The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment.

Pharmacist- and Nurse-Led Medical Optimization in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional approaches to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) management often lead to delayed initiation and titration of therapies in patients with heart failure. This study sought to characterize alternative models of care involving nonphysician provider-led GDMT interventions and their associations with therapy use and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing nonphysician provider-led GDMT initiation and/or uptitration interventions vs usual physician care (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022334661). We queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform for peer-reviewed studies from database inception to July 31, 2022. In the meta-analysis, we used RCT data only and leveraged random-effects models to estimate pooled outcomes. Primary outcomes were GDMT initiation and titration to target dosages by therapeutic class. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. RESULTS: We reviewed 33 studies, of which 17 (52%) were randomized controlled trials with median follow-ups of 6 months; 14 (82%) trials evaluated nurse interventions, and the remainder assessed pharmacists' interventions. The primary analysis pooled data from 16 RCTs, which enrolled 5268 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) and beta-blocker initiation were 2.09 (95% CI 1.05-4.16; I2 = 68%) and 1.91 (95% CI1.35-2.70; I2 = 37%), respectively. Outcomes were similar for uptitration of RASI (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.20; I2 = 77%) and beta-blocker (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.29-3.83; I2 = 66%). No association was found with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47-2.19). There were lower rates of mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; I2 = 12%) and hospitalization due to HF (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.01; I2 = 25%) across intervention arms, but these differences were small and not statistically significant. Prediction intervals were wide due to moderate-to-high heterogeneity across trial populations and interventions. Subgroup analyses by provider type did not show significant effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist- and nurse-led interventions for GDMT initiation and/or uptitration improved guideline concordance. Further research evaluating newer therapies and titration strategies integrated with pharmacist- and/or nurse-based care may be valuable.

Clinical and Echocardiographic Diversity Associated With Physical Fitness in the Project Baseline Health Study: Implications for Heart Failure Staging.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and echocardiographic features may carry diverse information about the development of heart failure (HF). Therefore, we determined heterogeneity in clinical and echocardiographic phenotypes and its association with exercise capacity. METHODS: In 2036 community-dwelling individuals, we defined echocardiographic profiles of left and right heart remodeling and dysfunction. We subdivided the cohort based on presence (+) or absence (-) of HF risk factors (RFs) and echocardiographic abnormalities (RF-/Echo-, RF-/Echo+, RF+/Echo-, RF+/Echo+). Multivariable-adjusted associations between subgroups and physical performance metrics from 6-minute walk and treadmill exercise testing were assessed. RESULTS: The prevalence was 35.3% for RF-/Echo-, 4.7% for RF-/Echo+, 39.3% for RF+/Echo-, and 20.6% for RF+/Echo+. We observed large diversity in echocardiographic profiles in the Echo+ group. Participants with RF-/Echo+ (18.6% of Echo+) had predominantly echocardiographic abnormalities other than left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction, hypertrophy and reduced ejection fraction, whereas their physical performance was similar to RF-/Echo-. In contrast, participants with RF+/Echo+ presented primarily with LV hypertrophy or dysfunction, features that related to lower 6-minute walking distance and lower exercise capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical echocardiographic abnormalities suggest HF pathogenesis, but the presence of HF risk factors and type of echo abnormality should be considered so as to distinguish adverse from benign adaptation and to stratify HF risk.

Achievement and quality measure attainment in patients hospitalized with atrial fibrillation: Results from The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) registry.

BACKGROUND: The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) Registry uses achievement and quality measures to improve the care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate overall and site-level variation in attainment of these measures among sites participating in the GWTG-AFIB Registry. METHODS: From the GWTG-AFIB registry, we included patients with AF admitted between 1/3/2013 and 6/30/2019. We described patient-level attainment and variation in attainment across sites of 6 achievement measures with 1) defect-free scores (percent of patients with all eligible measures attained), and 2) composite opportunity scores (percent of all eligible patient measures attained). We also described attainment of 11 quality measures at the patient-level. RESULTS: Among 80,951 patients hospitalized for AF (age 70±13 years, 47.0% female; CHA2DS2-VASc 3.6±1.8) at 132 sites. Site-level defect-free scores ranged from 4.7% to 85.8% (25th, 50th, 75th percentile: 32.7%, 52.1%, 64.4%). Composite opportunity scores ranged from 39.4% to 97.5% (25th, 50th, 75th: 68.1%, 80.3%, 87.1%). Attainment was notably low for the following quality measures: 1) aldosterone antagonist prescription when ejection fraction ≤35% (29% of those eligible); and 2) avoidance of antiplatelet therapy with OAC in patients without coronary/peripheral artery disease (81% of those eligible). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high overall attainment of care measures across GWTG-AFIB registry sites, large site variation was present with meaningful opportunities to improve AF care beyond OAC prescription, including but not limited to prescription of aldosterone antagonists in those with AF and systolic dysfunction and avoidance of non-indicated adjunctive antiplatelet therapy.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Projected Clinical Benefits of Implementation of SGLT-2 Inhibitors Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors form the latest pillar in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and appear to be effective across a range of patient profiles. There is increasing interest in initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors during hospitalization, yet little is known about the putative benefits of this implementation strategy. METHODS: We evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF (≤ 40%) hospitalized at 228 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry in 2016 who had linked claims data for ≥ 1 year postdischarge. We identified those eligible for dapagliflozin under the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration label (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rates < 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2, dialysis and type 1 diabetes). We evaluated 1-year outcomes overall and among key subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, gender, race, hospital region, kidney function, diabetes status, triple therapy). We then projected the potential benefits of implementation of dapagliflozin based on the risk reductions observed in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial. RESULTS: Among 7523 patients hospitalized for HFrEF, 6576 (87%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 39% women, 11% Black). Among eligible candidates, discharge use of ß-blockers, ACEi/ARB, MRA, ARNI, and triple therapy (ACEi/ARB/ARNI+ß-blocker+MRA) was recorded in 88%, 64%, 29%, 3%, and 20%, respectively. Among treatment-eligible patients, the 1-year incidence (95% CI) of mortality was 37% (36-38%) and of HF readmission was 33% (32-34%), and each exceeded 25% across all key subgroups. Among 1333 beneficiaries eligible for dapagliflozin who were already on triple therapy, the 1-year incidence of mortality was 26% (24%-29%) and the 1-year readmission due to HF was 30% (27%-32%). Applying the relative risk reductions observed in DAPA-HF, absolute risk reductions with complete implementation of dapagliflozin among treatment-eligible Medicare beneficiaries are projected to be 5% (1%-9%) for mortality and 9% (5%-12%) for HF readmission by 1 year. The projected number of Medicare beneficiaries who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent 1 death is 19 (11-114), and 12 (8-21) would need to be treated to prevent 1 readmission due to HF. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who are eligible for dapagliflozin after hospitalization due to HF, including those well-treated with other disease-modifying therapies, face high risks of mortality and HF readmission by 1 year. If the benefits of reductions in death and hospitalizations due to HF observed in clinical trials can be fully realized, the absolute benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among treatment-eligible candidates are anticipated to be substantial in this high-risk postdischarge setting.

Health System-Level Performance in Prescribing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results From the CONNECT-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health system-level interventions to improve use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) often fail in the acute care setting. We sought to identify factors associated with high performance in adoption of GDMT among health systems in CONNECT-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Site-level composite quality scores were calculated at discharge and last follow-up. Site performance was defined as the average change in score from baseline to last follow-up and analyzed by performance tertile using a mixed-effects model with baseline performance as a fixed effect and site as a random effect. Among 150 randomized sites, the mean 12-month improvement in GDMT was 1.8% (-26.4% to 60.0%). Achievement of 50% or more of the target dose for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and beta-blockers at 12 months was modest, even at the highest performing sites (median 29.6% [23%, 41%] and 41.2% [29%, 50%]). Sites achieving higher GDMT scores had care teams that included social workers and pharmacists, as well as patients who were able to afford medications and access medication lists in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial gaps in site-level use of GDMT were found, even among the highest performing sites. The failure of hospital-level interventions to improve quality metrics suggests that a team-based approach to care and improved patient access to medications are needed for postdischarge success.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Statin Use in Older Adults for Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Across a Spectrum of Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: There remains uncertainty regarding optimal primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention practices for older adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess statin treatment patterns and incident ASCVD among older patients for primary prevention across the spectrum of ASCVD risk. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of participants without ASCVD aged 65-79 years. Patients were stratified by age (65-69, 70-75, > 75 years) and 10-year ASCVD risk category (low/borderline, intermediate, high) based on the Pooled Cohort Equations. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify predictors of moderate- or high-intensity statin prescriptions. Cox proportional models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for incident ASCVD. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65-79 years without ASCVD from a Northern California health system. MAIN MEASURES: Statin prescriptions and incident ASCVD events. KEY RESULTS: There were 54,066 patients, with 10,288 (19%) aged > 75 years and 57% women. Compared with younger groups, adults > 75 years were less likely to be prescribed moderate- or high-intensity statin prescriptions across ASCVD risk groups (all p < 0.001); this persisted after multivariable adjustment including for ASCVD risk (odds ratio [OR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.86). Adults > 75 years were more likely to experience incident ASCVD (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.23-1.63). Women (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81-0.89) and underweight older adults (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.33-0.61) were also less likely to receive moderate- or high-intensity statins. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults aged 65-79 years without prior ASCVD, those > 75 years of age were less likely to receive moderate- or high-intensity statins regardless of ASCVD risk compared with their younger counterparts, while experiencing more incident ASCVD. Efforts are warranted to study the reasons for age-based differences in statin use in older adults, particularly those at highest ASCVD risk.