A more complete measure of vertical integration between physicians and hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an accurate and reproducible measure of vertical integration between physicians and hospitals (defined as hospital or health system employment of physicians), which can be used to assess the impact of integration on healthcare quality and spending. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We use multiple data sources including from the Internal Revenue Service, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and others to determine the Tax Identification Numbers (TINs) that hospitals and physicians use to bill Medicare for services, and link physician billing TINs to hospital-related TINs. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a new measure of vertical integration, based on the TINs that hospitals and physicians use to bill Medicare, using a broad set of sources for hospital-related TINs. We considered physicians as hospital-employed if they bill Medicare primarily or exclusively using hospital-related TINs. We assessed integration status for all physicians who billed Medicare from 1999 to 2019. We compared this measure with others used in the existing literature. We conducted a simulation study which highlights the importance of accurately identifying integrated physicians when study the effects of integration. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We extracted physician and hospital-related TINs from multiple sources, emphasizing specificity (a small proportion of nonintegrated physicians identified as integrated). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 12,269 hospital-related TINs, used for billing by 546,775 physicians. We estimate that the percentage of integrated physicians rose from 19% in 1999 to 43% in 2019. Our approach identifies many additional physician practices as integrated; a simpler TIN measure, comparable with prior work, identifies only 30% (3877) of the TINs we identify. A service location measure, used in prior work, has both many false positives and false negatives. CONCLUSION: We developed a new measure of hospital-physician integration. This measure is reproducible and identifies many additional physician practices as integrated.

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.

Trends in Short-, Intermediate-, and Long-Term Mortality Following Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction Among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2008 to 2018.

Background Advances in technology and care quality have transformed the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but little is known about trends in mortality rates across separate time periods after hospitalization. Methods and Results We identified all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with incident AMI from 2008 to 2018. We calculated unadjusted mortality rates by dividing the number of all-cause deaths by the number of patients with incident AMI for the following time periods: acute (in hospital), post acute (0-30 days after hospital discharge), short term (31 days to 1 year after discharge), intermediate term (1-2 years after discharge), and long term (2-3 years after discharge). Each period was considered separately (ie, patients who died during one period were not counted in subsequent periods). Using logistic regression to account for differences in patient characteristics, we calculated annual risk standardized mortality ratios defined as observed over expected mortality based on 2008 rates. Among 768 084 patients with incident AMI (mean age 81 years, 48% male, 87% White), declines in observed-to-expected mortality ratios were observed for each time period: acute (0.68 [95% CI, 0.66-0.71]), postacute (0.72 [95% CI, 0.71-0.75]), short term (0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.78]), intermediate term (0.79 [95% CI, 0.77-0.81]), and long term (0.77 [95% CI, 0.75-0.79]). Declines were observed both for patients with and without ST-segment-elevation AMI. Conclusions For patients with incident AMI, there have been improvements in mortality rates across periods spanning the hospital stay through 3 years after discharge, reflecting advances in AMI care from hospitalization through long-term outpatient follow-up.

Association of Past and Future Paid Medical Malpractice Claims.

Importance: Many physicians believe that most medical malpractice claims are random events. This study assessed the association of prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future paid claims; whether public disclosure of prior paid claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. Objective: To examine the association of 1 or more prior paid medical malpractice claims with future paid claims. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study assessed the association between prior paid claims (including a single prior claim) with future claims; whether public disclosure of prior claims affects future paid claims; and whether the association of prior and future paid claims decayed over time. This retrospective case-control study included all 881 876 licensed physicians in the US. All data analysis took place between July, 2018 and January, 2023. Exposure: Paid medical malpractice claims. Main Outcome and Measures: Association between a prior paid medical malpractice claim and likelihood of a paid claim in a future period, compared with simulated results expected if paid claims are random events. Using the same outcomes, we also assessed whether public disclosure of paid claims affects future paid claim rates. Results: This study included all 881 876 physicians licensed to practice in the US at the time of the study. Overall, 3.3% of the 841 961 physicians with 0 paid claims in the prior period had 1 or more claims in the future period vs 12.4% of the 34 512 physicians with 1 paid claim in the prior period; 22.4% of the 4189 physicians with 2 paid claims in the prior period; and 37% of the 1214 physicians with 3 paid claims in the prior period. The association between prior claims and future claims was similar for high-medical-malpractice-risk and lower-risk specialties; 1 prior-period claim was associated with a 3.1 times higher likelihood of a future-period claim for high-risk specialties (95% CI, 2.8-3.4) vs a 4.2 times higher likelihood for lower-risk specialties (95% CI, 3.8-4.6). The predictive power of a prior paid claim for future claims declined gradually as the time since the prior claim increased, for prior or future periods up to 10 years. Public disclosure did not affect the association between prior and future paid claims. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of paid medical malpractice claims for all US physicians, a single prior paid claim was associated with substantial, long-lived higher future claim risk, independent of whether a physician was practicing in a high- or low-risk specialty, or whether a state publicly disclosed paid claims. Timely, noncoercive intervention, including education, has the potential to reduce future claims.

Effect of the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model on Initiating and Intensifying Medications: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Risk Reduction Model pays provider organizations for measuring and reducing Medicare patients' cardiovascular risk. Objective: To assess whether the model increases the initiation or intensification of antihypertensive medications or statins among patients with blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels above guideline thresholds for treatment intensification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial included primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments across the US. Participants included Medicare patients who were enrolled into the model in 2017 by participating organizations and who were at high risk and at medium risk of a myocardial infarction or stroke in 10 years. Patient outcomes were analyzed for 1 year postenrollment (through December 2018) using an intent-to-treat design. Analysis began November 2019. Interventions: US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services paid organizations for risk stratifying Medicare patients and reducing CVD risk among high-risk patients through discussing risk scores, developing individualized risk reduction plans, and following up with patients twice yearly. Main Outcomes and Measures: Initiating or intensifying statin or antihypertensive therapy within 1 year of enrollment, measured in Medicare Part D claims, and LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure levels approximately 1 year after enrollment, measured in usual care and reported to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services via a data registry (data complete for 51% of high-risk enrollees). The study's primary outcome (incidence of first-time myocardial infarction and stroke) is not reported because the trial is ongoing. Results: A total of 330 primary care and cardiology practices, health care centers, and hospital-based outpatient departments and 125 436 Medicare patients were included in this analysis. High-risk patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 74 (4.1), 15 213 (63%) were male, 21 657 (90%) were receiving antihypertensive medication at baseline, and 16 558 (69%) were receiving statins. Almost all (21 791 [91%]) high-risk intervention group patients had above-threshold systolic blood pressure level (>130 mm Hg), LDL cholesterol level (>70 mg/dL), or both. Patients in the intervention group with these risk factors were more likely than control patients (8127 [37.3%] vs 4753 [32.4%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.9-6.7; P < .001) to initiate or intensify statins or antihypertensive medication. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not pay for CVD risk reduction for medium-risk enrollees, but initiation or intensification rates for these enrollees were also higher in the intervention vs control groups (12 668 [27.9%] vs 7544 [24.8%]; adjusted difference in percentage points, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-4.3; P < .001). Among high-risk enrollees with clinical data approximately 1 year after enrollment, LDL cholesterol level was slightly lower in the intervention vs control groups (mean [SD], 89 [31.8] vs 91 [32.1] mg/dL; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.8; 95% CI, -2.9 to -0.6; P = .002), as was systolic blood pressure (mean [SD], 133 [15.7] vs 135 [16.4] mm Hg; adjusted difference in percentage points, -1.7; 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.6; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a pay-for-performance model led to modest increases in the use of CVD medications in a range of organizations, despite high medication use at baseline.

Differences in High- and Low-Value Cardiovascular Testing by Health Insurance Provider.

Background Quality of care incentives and reimbursements for cardiovascular testing differ between insurance providers. We hypothesized that there are differences in the use of guideline-concordant testing between Medicaid versus commercial insurance patients <65 years, and between Medicare Advantage versus Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years. Methods and Results Using data from the Colorado All-Payer Claims Database from 2015 to 2018, we identified patients eligible to receive a high-value test recommended by guidelines: assessment of left ventricular function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or incident heart failure, or a low-value test that provides minimal patient benefit: stress testing prior to low-risk surgery or routine stress testing within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Among 145 616 eligible patients, 37% had fee-for-service Medicare, 18% Medicare Advantage, 22% Medicaid, and 23% commercial insurance. Using multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive high-value testing for acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [0.73-0.98]; P=0.03) and heart failure (OR, 0.59 [0.51-0.70]; P<0.01) compared with commercially insured patients. Medicare Advantage patients were more likely to receive high-value testing for acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.35 [1.15-1.59]; P<0.01) and less likely to receive low-value testing after percutaneous coronary intervention/ coronary artery bypass graft (OR, 0.63 [0.55-0.72]; P<0.01) compared with Medicare fee-for-service patients. Conclusions Guideline-concordant testing was less likely to occur among patients with Medicaid compared with commercial insurance, and more likely to occur among patients with Medicare Advantage compared with fee-for-service Medicare. Insurance plan features may provide valuable targets to improve guideline-concordant testing.

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.

Evidence and Recommendations on the Use of Telemedicine for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: An International Expert Position Paper.

Telemedicine allows the remote exchange of medical data between patients and healthcare professionals. It is used to increase patients' access to care and provide effective healthcare services at a distance. During the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has thrived and emerged worldwide as an indispensable resource to improve the management of isolated patients due to lockdown or shielding, including those with hypertension. The best proposed healthcare model for telemedicine in hypertension management should include remote monitoring and transmission of vital signs (notably blood pressure) and medication adherence plus education on lifestyle and risk factors, with video consultation as an option. The use of mixed automated feedback services with supervision of a multidisciplinary clinical team (physician, nurse, or pharmacist) is the ideal approach. The indications include screening for suspected hypertension, management of older adults, medically underserved people, high-risk hypertensive patients, patients with multiple diseases, and those isolated due to pandemics or national emergencies.

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.

Trends in Medicare Payment Rates for Noninvasive Cardiac Tests and Association With Testing Location.

Importance: To control spending, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reduced Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments for noninvasive cardiac tests (NCTs) performed in provider-based office settings (ambulatory offices not administratively affiliated with hospitals) starting in 2005. Contemporaneously, payments for hospital-based outpatient testing increased. The association between differential payments by site and test location is unknown. Objectives: To quantify trends in differential Medicare FFS payments for NCTs performed in hospital-based and provider-based settings, determine the association between the hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing payment ratio and the proportion of hospital-based NCTs, and to examine trends in test location between Medicare FFS and 3 Medicare Advantage health maintenance organizations for which Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payments do not depend on testing location. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational claims-based study used Medicare FFS claims from 1999 to 2015 (5% random sample) and Medicare Advantage claims from 3 large health maintenance organizations (2005-2015) among Medicare FFS beneficiaries aged 65 years or older and a health maintenance organization control group. Statistical analysis was performed from May 1, 2017, to July 15, 2019. Exposures: The weighted mean payment ratio of Medicare FFS hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing for outpatient NCTs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of outpatient NCTs performed in the hospital-based setting and Medicare FFS costs. Results: The data included a mean of 1.72 million patient-years annually in Medicare FFS (mean age, 75.2 years; 57.3% female in 2015) and a mean of 142 230 patient-years annually in the managed care control group (mean age, 74.8 years; 56.2% female in 2015). The Medicare payment ratio of FFS hospital-based outpatient testing to provider-based office testing increased from 1.05 in 2005 to 2.32 in 2015. The FFS hospital-based outpatient testing proportion increased from 21.1% in 2008 to 43.2% in 2015 and was correlated with the payment ratio (correlation coefficient with a 1-year lag, 0.767; P < .001). In contrast, the hospital-based outpatient testing proportion for the control group declined from 16.6% in 2008 to 15.2% in 2015 (correlation coefficient, -0.024, P = .95). The estimated extra costs owing to tests shifting to the hospital-based outpatient setting in the Medicare FFS group was $661 million in 2015, including $161 million in patient out-of-pocket costs. Conclusions and Relevance: In settings in which reimbursement depends on test location, increasing hospital-based payments correlated with greater proportions of outpatient NCTs performed in the hospital-based outpatient setting. Site-neutral payments may offer an incentive for testing to be performed in the more efficient location.

Influence of Multimorbidity on Burden and Appropriateness of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether burden of multiple chronic conditions (MCCs) influences the risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate device therapies. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven US healthcare delivery systems. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. MEASUREMENTS: Data on 24 comorbid conditions were captured from electronic health records and categorized into quartiles of comorbidity burden (0-3, 4-5, 6-7 and 8-16). Incidence of ICD therapies (shock and antitachycardia pacing [ATP] therapies), including appropriateness, was collected for 3 years after implantation. Outcomes included time to first ICD therapy, total ICD therapy burden, and risk of inappropriate vs appropriate ICD therapy. RESULTS: Among 2235 patients (mean age = 69 ± 11 years, 75% men), the median number of comorbidities was 6 (interquartile range = 4-8), with 98% having at least two comorbidities. During a mean 2.2 years of follow-up, 18.3% of patients experienced at least one appropriate therapy and 9.9% experienced at least one inappropriate therapy. Higher comorbidity burden was associated with an increased risk of first inappropriate therapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.94 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.14-3.31] for 4-5 comorbidities; HR = 2.25 [95% CI = 1.25-4.05] for 6-7 comorbidities; and HR = 2.91 [95% CI = 1.54-5.50] for 8-16 comorbidities). Participants with 8-16 comorbidities had a higher total burden of ICD therapy (adjusted relative risk [RR] = 2.12 [95% CI = 1.43-3.16]), a higher burden of inappropriate therapy (RR = 3.39 [95% CI = 1.67-6.86]), and a higher risk of receiving inappropriate vs appropriate therapy (RR = 1.74 [95% CI = 1.07-2.82]). Comorbidity burden was not significantly associated with receipt of appropriate ICD therapies. Patterns were similar when separately examining shock or ATP therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention ICD recipients, MCC burden was independently associated with an increased risk of inappropriate but not appropriate device therapies. Comorbidity burden should be considered when engaging patients in shared decision making about ICD implantation.

Multimorbidity Burden and Adverse Outcomes in a Community-Based Cohort of Adults with Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: To assess multimorbidity burden and its association with clinical outcomes in adults with heart failure (HF) according to sex, age, and HF type. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Five healthcare delivery systems across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with HF (N=114,553). MEASUREMENTS: We characterized participants with respect to the presence of 26 chronic conditions categorized into quartiles based on overall burden of comorbidity (<5, 5-6, 7-8, ≥9). Outcomes included all-cause death and hospitalization for HF or any cause. Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate the adjusted association between categorized burden of multimorbidity burden and outcomes. RESULTS: Individuals with more morbidities were more likely to die than those with fewer then 5 morbidities (5-6 morbidities: adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=1.27 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.24-1.31; 7-8 morbidities: aHR=1.52, 95% CI=1.48-1.57; ≥9 morbidities: aHR=1.92, 95% CI=1.86-1.99). There was a graded, higher adjusted rate of any-cause hospitalization associated with 5 or 6 (aHR=1.28, 95% CI=1.25-1.30), 7 or 8 (aHR=1.47, 95% CI=1.44-1.50), or 9 or more (aHR=1.77, 95% CI=1.73-1.82) morbidities (vs <5). Similar findings were observed for HF-specific hospitalization in those with 5 or 6 (aHR=1.22, 95% CI=1.19-1.26), 7 or 8 (aHR=1.39, 95% CI=1.34-1.44), or 9 or more (aHR 1.68, 95% CI=1.61-1.74) morbidities (vs <5). Consistent findings were seen according to sex, age group, and HF type (preserved, reduced, borderline HF), in the association between categorical burden of multimorbidity and outcomes especially prominent in individuals younger than 65. CONCLUSION: After adjustment, higher levels of multimorbidity predicted worse HF outcomes and may be an important consideration in strategies to improve clinical and person-centered outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2305-2313, 2018.