The Effect of Medical Scribes in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Integrating medical scribes with clinicians has been suggested to improve access, quality of care, enhance patient/clinician satisfaction, and increase productivity revenue. OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic review to evaluate the effects of medical scribes in emergency departments. METHODS: Electronic databases from 2010 through December 2019. Two individuals independently reviewed study eligibility, rated risk of bias, and determined overall certainty of evidence. Data abstracted included study and population characteristics, outcomes (efficiency, patient or clinician satisfaction, financial productivity, documentation quality, cost, and training time), and the effect of compensation structure, qualifications, duties, and setting on outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies (18 observational) were included; 12 from two institutions. All utilized in-person rather than virtual scribes. Fifteen were rated as serious or critical risk of bias; five were rated moderate. Findings indicate that scribes may increase patients seen per day and decrease length of stay; however, effects were small and may vary by setting and outcome measured (low certainty). Scribes may increase financial productivity; however, costs associated with developing, implementing, and maintaining scribe programs were not adequately reported. Results were mixed for door-to-room or door-to-provider time, patients left without being seen, and patient/clinician satisfaction. No studies examined the effects of scribes based on compensation structure, qualifications or duties. CONCLUSIONS: Although information quality, quantity, and applicability are limited, in-person medical scribes may improve emergency department efficiency and financial productivity. There was no information on virtual scribes. There was little information on patient or clinician satisfaction, scribe documentation quality, or whether results vary by in-house vs. contracted hiring and training.

Serum Bicarbonate in Acute Heart Failure: Relationship to Treatment Strategies and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Though commonly noted in clinical practice, it is unknown if decongestion in acute heart failure (AHF) results in increased serum bicarbonate. METHODS AND RESULTS: For 678 AHF patients in the DOSE-AHF, CARRESS-HF, and ROSE-AHF trials, we assessed change in bicarbonate (baseline to 72-96 hours) according to decongestion strategy, and the relationship between bicarbonate change and protocol-defined decongestion. Median baseline bicarbonate was 28 mEq/L. Patients with baseline bicarbonate ≥28 mEq/L had lower ejection fraction, worse renal function and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide than those with baseline bicarbonate <28 mEq/L. There were no differences in bicarbonate change between treatment groups in DOSE-AHF or ROSE-AHF (all P > .1). In CARRESS-HF, bicarbonate increased with pharmacologic care but decreased with ultrafiltration (median +3.3 vs -0.9 mEq/L, respectively; P < .001). Bicarbonate change was not associated with successful decongestion (P > .2 for all trials). CONCLUSIONS: In AHF, serum bicarbonate is most commonly elevated in patients with more severe heart failure. Despite being used in clinical practice as an indicator for decongestion, change in serum bicarbonate was not associated with significant decongestion.

Intensification of Medication Therapy for Cardiorenal Syndrome in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Worsening renal function in heart failure may be related to increased venous congestion, decreased cardiac output, or both. Diuretics are universally used in acute decompensated heart failure, but they may be ineffective and may lead to azotemia. We aimed to compare the decongestive properties of a urine output-guided diuretic adjustment and standard therapy for the management of cardiorenal syndrome in acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data were pooled from subjects randomized to the stepwise pharmacologic care algorithm (SPCA) in the CARRESS-HF trial and those who developed cardiorenal syndrome (rise in creatinine >0.3 mg/dL) in the DOSE-AHF and ROSE-AHF trials. Patients treated with SPCA (n = 94) were compared with patients treated with standard decongestive therapy (SDT) that included intravenous loop diuretic use (DOSE-AHF and ROSE-AHF; n = 107) at the time of cardiorenal syndrome and followed for net fluid balance, weight loss, and changing renal function. The SPCA group had higher degrees of jugular venous pressure (P < .0001) at the time of cardiorenal syndrome. The group that received SPCA had more weight change (-3.4 ± 5.2 lb) and more net fluid loss (1.705 ± 1.417 L) after 24 hours than the SDT group (-0.8 ± 3.4 lb and 0.892 ± 1.395 L, respectively; P < .001 for both) with a slight improvement in renal function (creatinine change -0.1 ± 0.3 vs 0.0 ± 0.3 mg/dL, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SDT, patients who received an intensification of medication therapy for treating persisting congestion had greater net fluid and weight loss without being associated with renal compromise.

Ultrafiltration in decompensated heart failure with cardiorenal syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ultrafiltration is an alternative strategy to diuretic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Little is known about the efficacy and safety of ultrafiltration in patients with acute decompensated heart failure complicated by persistent congestion and worsened renal function. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 188 patients with acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion to a strategy of stepped pharmacologic therapy (94 patients) or ultrafiltration (94 patients). The primary end point was the bivariate change from baseline in the serum creatinine level and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment. Patients were followed for 60 days. RESULTS: Ultrafiltration was inferior to pharmacologic therapy with respect to the bivariate end point of the change in the serum creatinine level and body weight 96 hours after enrollment (P=0.003), owing primarily to an increase in the creatinine level in the ultrafiltration group. At 96 hours, the mean change in the creatinine level was -0.04±0.53 mg per deciliter (-3.5±46.9 µmol per liter) in the pharmacologic-therapy group, as compared with +0.23±0.70 mg per deciliter (20.3±61.9 µmol per liter) in the ultrafiltration group (P=0.003). There was no significant difference in weight loss 96 hours after enrollment between patients in the pharmacologic-therapy group and those in the ultrafiltration group (a loss of 5.5±5.1 kg [12.1±11.3 lb] and 5.7±3.9 kg [12.6±8.5 lb], respectively; P=0.58). A higher percentage of patients in the ultrafiltration group than in the pharmacologic-therapy group had a serious adverse event (72% vs. 57%, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial involving patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, worsened renal function, and persistent congestion, the use of a stepped pharmacologic-therapy algorithm was superior to a strategy of ultrafiltration for the preservation of renal function at 96 hours, with a similar amount of weight loss with the two approaches. Ultrafiltration was associated with a higher rate of adverse events. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00608491.).

Rationale and design of the Aquapheresis Versus Intravenous Diuretics and Hospitalization for Heart Failure (AVOID-HF) trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients hospitalized with acutely decompensated heart failure, unresolved signs and symptoms of fluid overload have been consistently associated with poor outcomes. Regardless of dosing and type of administration, intravenous loop diuretics have not reduced heart failure events or mortality in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. The results of trials comparing intravenous loop diuretics to mechanical fluid removal by isolated venovenous ultrafiltration have yielded conflicting results. Studies evaluating early decongestive strategies have shown that ultrafiltration removed more fluid and was associated with fewer heart failure-related rehospitalization than intravenous loop diuretics. In contrast, when used in the setting of worsening renal function, ultrafiltration was associated with poorer renal outcomes and no reduction in heart failure events. METHODS: The AVOID-HF trial seeks to determine if an early strategy of ultrafiltration in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure is associated with fewer heart failure events at 90 days compared with a strategy based on intravenous loop diuretics. Study subjects from 40 highly experienced institutions are randomized to either early ultrafiltration or intravenous loop diuretics. In both treatment arms, fluid removal therapies are adjusted according to the patients' hemodynamic condition and renal function. The study was unilaterally terminated by the sponsor in the absence of futility and safety concerns after the enrollment of 221 subjects, or 27% of the originally planned sample size of 810 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The AVOID-HF trial's principal aim is to compare the safety and efficacy of ultrafiltration vs that of intravenous loop diuretics in patients hospitalized with acutely decompensated heart failure. Because stepped treatment approaches are applied in both ultrafiltration and intravenous loop diuretics groups and the primary end point is time to first heart failure event within 90 days, it is hoped that the AVOID-HF trial, despite its untimely termination by the sponsor, will provide further insight on how to optimally decongest patients with fluid-overloaded heart failure.

Diuretic strategies in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are an essential component of therapy for patients with acute decompensated heart failure, but there are few prospective data to guide their use. METHODS: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 308 patients with acute decompensated heart failure to receive furosemide administered intravenously by means of either a bolus every 12 hours or continuous infusion and at either a low dose (equivalent to the patient's previous oral dose) or a high dose (2.5 times the previous oral dose). The protocol allowed specified dose adjustments after 48 hours. The coprimary end points were patients' global assessment of symptoms, quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of the score on a visual-analogue scale over the course of 72 hours, and the change in the serum creatinine level from baseline to 72 hours. RESULTS: In the comparison of bolus with continuous infusion, there was no significant difference in patients' global assessment of symptoms (mean AUC, 4236±1440 and 4373±1404, respectively; P=0.47) or in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.05±0.3 mg per deciliter [4.4±26.5 µmol per liter] and 0.07±0.3 mg per deciliter [6.2±26.5 µmol per liter], respectively; P=0.45). In the comparison of the high-dose strategy with the low-dose strategy, there was a nonsignificant trend toward greater improvement in patients' global assessment of symptoms in the high-dose group (mean AUC, 4430±1401 vs. 4171±1436; P=0.06). There was no significant difference between these groups in the mean change in the creatinine level (0.08±0.3 mg per deciliter [7.1±26.5 µmol per liter] with the high-dose strategy and 0.04±0.3 mg per deciliter [3.5±26.5 µmol per liter] with the low-dose strategy, P=0.21). The high-dose strategy was associated with greater diuresis and more favorable outcomes in some secondary measures but also with transient worsening of renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute decompensated heart failure, there were no significant differences in patients' global assessment of symptoms or in the change in renal function when diuretic therapy was administered by bolus as compared with continuous infusion or at a high dose as compared with a low dose. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00577135.).

Long-term survival in patients with refractory angina.

AIMS: An increasing number of patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) are not candidates for traditional revascularization and experience angina in spite of excellent medical therapy. Despite limited data regarding the natural history and predictors of adverse outcome, these patients have been considered at high risk for early mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The OPtions In Myocardial Ischemic Syndrome Therapy (OPTIMIST) program at the Minneapolis Heart Institute offers traditional and investigational therapies for patients with refractory angina. A prospective clinical database includes detailed baseline and yearly follow-up information. Death status and cause were determined using the Social Security Death Index, clinical data, and death certificates. Time to death was analysed using survival analysis methods. For 1200 patients, the mean age was 63.5 years (77.5% male) with 72.4% having prior coronary artery bypass grafting, 74.4% prior percutaneous coronary intervention, 72.6% prior myocardial infarction, 78.3% 3-vessel CAD, 23.0% moderate-to-severe left-ventricular (LV) dysfunction, and 32.6% congestive heart failure (CHF). Overall, 241 patients died (20.1%: 71.8% cardiovascular) during a median follow-up 5.1 years (range 0-16, 14.7% over 9). By Kaplan-Meier analysis, mortality was 3.9% (95% CI 2.8-5.0) at 1 year and 28.4% (95% CI 24.9-32.0) at 9 years. Multivariate predictors of all-cause mortality were baseline age, diabetes, angina class, chronic kidney disease, LV dysfunction, and CHF. CONCLUSION: Long-term mortality in patients with refractory angina is lower than previously reported. Therapeutic options for this distinct and growing group of patients should focus on angina relief and improved quality of life.

Contemporary Use and Implications of Beta-Blockers in Patients With HFmrEF or HFpEF: The DELIVER Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although beta-blockers are not recommended for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) according to the latest European Society of Cardiology and American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines, these therapies remain commonly used for comorbidity management. There has been concern that beta-blockers may adversely influence clinical outcomes by limiting chronotropic response in HFpEF. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the contemporary use and implications of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) or HFpEF. METHODS: In the DELIVER (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure) trial, a total of 6,263 patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40% were randomized to dapagliflozin or placebo across 20 countries. In this prespecified analysis, efficacy and safety outcomes were examined according to beta-blocker use at randomization. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or worsening HF. RESULTS: Overall, beta-blockers were used in 5,177 patients (83%), with wide variation by geographic region. Beta-blocker use was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in covariate-adjusted models (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60-0.83). Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk of the primary outcome in patients taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94) and in patients not taking beta-blockers (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-1.03; Pinteraction = 0.85), with similar findings for key secondary endpoints. Adverse events were balanced between patients randomized to dapagliflozin and placebo, regardless of background beta-blocker use. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF who were enrolled in DELIVER, 4 out of 5 participants were treated with a beta-blocker. Beta-blocker use was not associated with a higher risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death. Dapagliflozin consistently and safely reduced clinical events, irrespective of background beta-blocker use. (Dapagliflozin Evaluation to Improve the Lives of Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure [DELIVER]; NCT03619213).

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnoea in heart failure.

AIMS: Periodic breathing with central sleep apnoea (CSA) is common in heart failure patients and is associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, acute study to determine the feasibility of using unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of CSA in heart failure patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-one patients from six centres underwent attempted transvenous lead placement. Of these, 16 qualified to undergo two successive nights of polysomnography-one night with and one night without phrenic nerve stimulation. Comparisons were made between the two nights using the following indices: apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI), central apnoea index (CAI), obstructive apnoea index (OAI), hypopnoea index, arousal index, and 4% oxygen desaturation index (ODI4%). Patients underwent phrenic nerve stimulation from either the right brachiocephalic vein (n = 8) or the left brachiocephalic or pericardiophrenic vein (n = 8). Therapy period was (mean ± SD) 251 ± 71 min. Stimulation resulted in significant improvement in the AHI [median (inter-quartile range); 45 (39-59) vs. 23 (12-27) events/h, P = 0.002], CAI [27 (11-38) vs. 1 (0-5) events/h, P≤ 0.001], arousal index [32 (20-42) vs. 12 (9-27) events/h, P = 0.001], and ODI4% [31 (22-36) vs. 14 (7-20) events/h, P = 0.002]. No significant changes occurred in the OAI or hypopnoea index. Two adverse events occurred (lead thrombus and episode of ventricular tachycardia), though neither was directly related to phrenic nerve stimulation therapy. CONCLUSION: Unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation significantly reduces episodes of CSA and restores a more natural breathing pattern in patients with heart failure. This approach may represent a novel therapy for CSA and warrants further study.

Effect of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition on exercise capacity and clinical status in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Studies in experimental and human heart failure suggest that phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors may enhance cardiovascular function and thus exercise capacity in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil compared with placebo on exercise capacity and clinical status in HFPEF. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of 216 stable outpatients with HF, ejection fraction ≥50%, elevated N-terminal brain-type natriuretic peptide or elevated invasively measured filling pressures, and reduced exercise capacity. Participants were randomized from October 2008 through February 2012 at 26 centers in North America. Follow-up was through August 30, 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Sildenafil (n = 113) or placebo (n = 103) administered orally at 20 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks, followed by 60 mg, 3 times daily for 12 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was change in peak oxygen consumption after 24 weeks of therapy. Secondary end points included change in 6-minute walk distance and a hierarchical composite clinical status score (range, 1-n, a higher value indicates better status; expected value with no treatment effect, 95) based on time to death, time to cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization, and change in quality of life for participants without cardiovascular or cardiorenal hospitalization at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, and 48% of patients were women. At baseline, median peak oxygen consumption (11.7 mL/kg/min) and 6-minute walk distance (308 m) were reduced. The median E/e' (16), left atrial volume index (44 mL/m2), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (41 mm Hg) were consistent with chronically elevated left ventricular filling pressures. At 24 weeks, median (IQR) changes in peak oxygen consumption (mL/kg/min) in patients who received placebo (-0.20 [IQR, -0.70 to 1.00]) or sildenafil (-0.20 [IQR, -1.70 to 1.11]) were not significantly different (P = .90) in analyses in which patients with missing week-24 data were excluded, and in sensitivity analysis based on intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing values (mean between-group difference, 0.01 mL/kg/min, [95% CI, -0.60 to 0.61]). The mean clinical status rank score was not significantly different at 24 weeks between placebo (95.8) and sildenafil (94.2) (P = .85). Changes in 6-minute walk distance at 24 weeks in patients who received placebo (15.0 m [IQR, -26.0 to 45.0]) or sildenafil (5.0 m [IQR, -37.0 to 55.0]; P = .92) were also not significantly different. Adverse events occurred in 78 placebo patients (76%) and 90 sildenafil patients (80%). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 placebo patients (16%) and 25 sildenafil patients (22%). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with HFPEF, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition with administration of sildenafil for 24 weeks, compared with placebo, did not result in significant improvement in exercise capacity or clinical status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00763867.

Low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide in acute heart failure with renal dysfunction: the ROSE acute heart failure randomized trial.

IMPORTANCE: Small studies suggest that low-dose dopamine or low-dose nesiritide may enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction; however, neither strategy has been rigorously tested. OBJECTIVE: To test the 2 independent hypotheses that, compared with placebo, addition of low-dose dopamine (2 µg/kg/min) or low-dose nesiritide (0.005 µg/kg/min without bolus) to diuretic therapy will enhance decongestion and preserve renal function in patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation [ROSE]) of 360 hospitalized patients with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m2), randomized within 24 hours of admission. Enrollment occurred from September 2010 to March 2013 across 26 sites in North America. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized in an open, 1:1 allocation ratio to the dopamine or nesiritide strategy. Within each strategy, participants were randomized in a double-blind, 2:1 ratio to active treatment or placebo. The dopamine (n = 122) and nesiritide (n = 119) groups were independently compared with the pooled placebo group (n = 119). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Coprimary end points included 72-hour cumulative urine volume (decongestion end point) and the change in serum cystatin C from enrollment to 72 hours (renal function end point). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, low-dose dopamine had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (dopamine, 8524 mL; 95% CI, 7917-9131 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830 ; difference, 229 mL; 95% CI, -714 to 1171 mL; P = .59) or on the change in cystatin C level (dopamine, 0.12 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.18 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.10; P = .72). Similarly, low-dose nesiritide had no significant effect on 72-hour cumulative urine volume (nesiritide, 8574 mL; 95% CI, 8014-9134 vs placebo, 8296 mL; 95% CI, 7762-8830; difference, 279 mL; 95% CI, -618 to 1176 mL; P = .49) or on the change in cystatin C level (nesiritide, 0.07 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 vs placebo, 0.11 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.06-0.16; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.05; P = .36). Compared with placebo, there was no effect of low-dose dopamine or nesiritide on secondary end points reflective of decongestion, renal function, or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: In participants with acute heart failure and renal dysfunction, neither low-dose dopamine nor low-dose nesiritide enhanced decongestion or improved renal function when added to diuretic therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01132846.

Cardiorenal rescue study in acute decompensated heart failure: rationale and design of CARRESS-HF, for the Heart Failure Clinical Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Worsening renal function is common among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). When this occurs, subsequent management decisions often pit the desire for effective decongestion against concerns about further worsening renal function. There are no evidence-based treatments or guidelines to assist in these difficult management decisions. Ultrafiltration is a potentially attractive alternative to loop diuretics for the management of fluid overload in patients with ADHF and worsening renal function. METHODS AND RESULTS: The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Heart Failure Clinical Research Network designed a clinical trial to determine if ultrafiltration results in improved renal function and relief of congestion compared with stepped pharmacologic care when assessed 96 hours after randomization in patients with ADHF and cardiorenal syndrome. Enrollment began in June 2008. This paper describes the rationale and design of the Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (CARRESS-HF). CONCLUSIONS: Treating the signs and symptoms of congestion in ADHF is often complicated by worsening renal function. CARRESS-HF compares treatment strategies (ultrafiltration vs stepped pharmacologic care) for the management of worsening renal function in patients with ADHF. The results of the CARRESS-HF trial are expected to provide information and evidence as to the most appropriate approaches for treating this challenging patient population.

Interobserver variability among experienced electrocardiogram readers to diagnose acute thrombotic coronary occlusion in patients with out of hospital cardiac arrest: Impact of metabolic milieu and angiographic culprit.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate interobserver concordance among experienced electrocardiogram (ECG) readers in predicting acute thrombotic coronary occlusion (ATCO) in the context of abnormal metabolic milieu (AMM) following resuscitated out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: OHCA patients with initial shockable rhythm who underwent invasive coronary angiography (ICA) were included. AMM was defined as one of: pH < 7.1, lactate > 2 mmol/L, serum potassium < 2.8 or >6.0 mEq/L. The initial ECG following ROSC but prior to ICA was adjudicated by 2 experienced readers using classic ST elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] and expanded criteria and their combination to predict ATCO on ICA. RESULTS: 152 consecutive patients (mean age 58 years, 76% male) met inclusion criteria. AMM was present in 77%; and 42% had ATCO on ICA. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV using classic STEMI criteria were 50%, 98%, 94%, 72% (c-statistic 0.74); whereas for combined (STEMI + expanded) criteria they were 69%, 88%, 81%, 79% respectively (c-statistic 0.79). Inter-observer agreement (kappa) was 0.7 for classic STEMI criteria, and 0.66 for combined criteria. Agreement between readers was consistently higher when ATCO was absent and with NMM (kappa 0.78), but lower in AMM (kappa 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Despite experienced ECG readers, there was only modest overall concordance in predicting ATCO in the context of resuscitated OHCA. Significant interobserver variations were noted dependent on metabolic milieu and angiographic ATCO. These observations fundamentally question the role of the 12-lead ECG as primary triaging tool for early angiography among patients with OHCA.

Drive Time and Receipt of Guideline-Recommended Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Importance: Many patients do not receive recommended services. Drive time to health care services may affect receipt of guideline-recommended care, but this has not been comprehensively studied. Objective: To assess associations between drive time to care and receipt of guideline-recommended screening, diagnosis, and treatment interventions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used administrative data from the National Veterans Health Administration (VA) data merged with Medicare data. Eligible participants were patients using VA services between January 2016 and December 2019. Women ages 65 years or older without underlying bone disease were assessed for osteoporosis screening. Patients with new diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) indicated by at least 2 encounter codes for COPD or at least 1 COPD-related hospitalization were assessed for receipt of diagnostic spirometry. Patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease were assessed for cardiac rehabilitation treatment. Exposures: Drive time from each patient's residential address to the closest VA facility where the service was available, measured using geocoded addresses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary outcome at the patient level for receipt of osteoporosis screening, spirometry, and cardiac rehabilitation. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associations between drive time and receipt of services. Results: Of 110 780 eligible women analyzed, 36 431 (32.9%) had osteoporosis screening (mean [SD] age, 66.7 [5.4] years; 19 422 [17.5%] Black, 63 403 [57.2%] White). Of 281 130 patients with new COPD diagnosis, 145 249 (51.7%) had spirometry (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [11.5] years; 268 999 [95.7%] men; 37 834 [13.5%] Black, 217 608 [77.4%] White). Of 73 146 patients hospitalized for ischemic heart disease, 11 171 (15.3%) had cardiac rehabilitation (mean [SD] age, 70.0 [10.8] years; 71 217 [97.4%] men; 15 213 [20.8%] Black, 52 144 [71.3%] White). The odds of receiving recommended services declined as drive times increased. Compared with patients with a drive time of 30 minutes or less, patients with a drive time of 61 to 90 minutes had lower odds of receiving osteoporosis screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95) and spirometry (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.92) while patients with a drive time of 91 to 120 minutes had lower odds of receiving cardiac rehabilitation (aOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.87). Results were similar in analyses restricted to urban patients or patients whose primary care clinic was in a tertiary care center. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, longer drive time was associated with less frequent receipt of guideline-recommended services across multiple components of care. To improve quality of care and health outcomes, health systems and clinicians should adopt strategies to mitigate travel burden, even for urban patients.

COVID-19 postacute care major organ damage: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Major organ complications have been reported in patients hospitalised for COVID-19; most studies lacked controls. OBJECTIVE: Examine major organ damage postdischarge among adults hospitalised for COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 controls. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library from 1 January 2020 to 19 May 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies of adults discharged from hospital for COVID-19; reporting major organ damage. Single review of abstracts; independent dual review of full text. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies. Outcome data were not pooled due to heterogeneity in populations, study designs and outcome assessment methods; findings are narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Of 124 studies in a full evidence report, 9 included non-COVID controls and are described here. Four of the nine (three USA, one UK) used large administrative databases. Four of the remaining five studies enrolled <600 COVID-19 patients. Mean or median age ranged from 49 to 70 years with 46%-94% male and 48%-78% White race; 10%-40% had been in intensive care units. Follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 22 weeks postdischarge. Four used hospitalised controls, three non-hospitalised controls and two were unclear. Studies used various definitions of, and methods to assess, major organ damage outcomes. While the magnitude of effect differed across studies, incident cardiac, pulmonary, liver, acute and chronic kidney, stroke, diabetes, and coagulation disorders were consistently greater in adults hospitalised for COVID-19 compared with non-COVID-19 controls. LIMITATIONS: Applicability to subgroups (age, gender, COVID-19 severity, treatment, vaccination status) and non-hospitalised patients is unknown. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Postacute COVID-19 major organ damage is common and likely higher than controls. However, there is substantial uncertainty. More consistent reporting of clinical outcomes and pre-COVID health status along with careful selection of control groups are needed to address evidence gaps. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020204788.

Implications of peripheral oedema in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a heart failure network analysis.

AIMS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous condition, and tissue congestion manifested by oedema is not present in all patients. We compared clinical characteristics, exercise capacity, and outcomes in patients with HFpEF with and without oedema. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study was a post hoc analysis of pooled data of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥50% enrolled in the DOSE, CARRESS-HF, RELAX, ATHENA, ROSE, INDIE, and NEAT trials. Patients were dichotomized by the severity of oedema. Cox proportional hazard regression and generalized linear regression models were used to assess associations between oedema, symptoms, and clinical outcomes. The ambulatory cohort included 393 patients (228 with and 165 without oedema), and the hospitalized cohort included 338 patients (249 with ≥moderate oedema and 89 with mild or none). Among ambulatory patients, patients with oedema had a higher body mass index (35.2 kg/m2 [inter-quartile range, IQR 30.5, 41.6] vs. 31.6 kg/m2 [IQR 27.9, 36.3], P < 0.001), greater burden of co-morbidities, higher intravascular pressures estimated on physical examination (elevated jugular venous pressure: 50% vs. 24.7%, P < 0.001), poorer renal function (creatinine: 1.2 mg/dL [IQR 0.9, 1.5] vs. 1 mg/dL [IQR 0.8, 1.3], P = 0.003), and lower peak VO2 (adjusted mean difference -1.04 mL/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [-1.71, -0.37], P < 0.003). Among hospitalized patients, despite greater in-hospital fluid/weight loss in the ≥moderate oedema group, there was no difference in the improvement in dyspnoea by the visual analogue scale or well-being visual analogue scale from baseline to 3-4 days and no statistically significant difference in the rate of 60 day rehospitalization/death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval [0.87, 2.39], P = 0.156). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFpEF and oedema display higher body mass, greater burden of co-morbidities, and more severe exercise intolerance, but clinical responses to treatment appear similar. Further research is required to better understand the nature of volume distribution in different HFpEF phenotypes.

The sympathorenal axis in hypertension and heart failure.

Excessive sympathetic drive is undoubtedly a major contributing factor to the pathophysiology of hypertension and heart failure. Much of the excessive sympathetic drive in these conditions is directed to the kidney, where it leads to inappropriate sodium retention, renin stimulation, and diminished renal function. Less well appreciated is the role the kidney itself plays in the generation of increased sympathetic activity by way of the renal somatic afferent nerves. The kidney therefore is both target and contributor to increased sympathetic activity in these conditions. Although some current pharmacotherapy indirectly targets this "sympathorenal axis," resistant hypertension remains a common problem, and the prognosis in heart failure remains poor, especially in more severe cases. It is now possible to directly target this axis via procedures, which directly interrupt renal sympathetic efferent and afferent signaling. Other procedures involving chronic carotid nerve stimulation may indirectly influence renal sympathetic tone and so improve renal sodium handling. These techniques have demonstrated early promise in hypertension and offer significant potential in heart failure as well. Should their early promise be borne out in controlled studies, the "sympathorenal axis" will have been proven to be a key element in the pathophysiology of these 2 very common, and dangerous, conditions.

The efficacy and safety of enhanced external counterpulsation in patients with peripheral arterial disease.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is common in patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) and is considered a relative contraindication to external enhanced counterpulsation (EECP), but there are no data that define the efficacy and safety of EECP in patients with PAD. The International EECP Patient Registry (IEPR) was used to compare initial post-therapy and 2-year follow-up clinical outcomes and adverse event rates in patients with and without PAD. From January 2002 to October 2004, 2126 patients were enrolled in the IEPR, of whom 493 (23%) had a history of PAD. Immediately following EECP, the reduction in angina (> or = 1 Canadian Cardiovascular Society class) was similar in patients with and without PAD (76.6% vs 79.0%, p = 0.27) as was improvement in the Duke Activity Score Index (DASI) score (+4.7% vs +6.1%, p < 0.001). Both angina reduction and DASI score improvement were sustained at 2 years. PAD patients discontinued EECP more frequently (12.0% vs 8.5%, p < 0.05), but lower extremity ulceration did not occur more frequently in patients with PAD (3.7% vs 2.7%, p = 0.26). Rates of death (17.1% vs 8.6%, p < 0.001) and myocardial infarction (9.5% vs 5.0%, p < 0.001) were, as expected, higher in patients with PAD compared to patients without PAD at 2 years. In conclusion, while PAD patients constitute a high-risk cohort with known higher adverse event rates, EECP led to similar short- and long-term improvements in angina and quality of life for individuals with PAD compared to those without PAD.

Effects of hydroxychloroquine treatment on QT interval.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been promoted as a potential treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there are safety concerns. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of HCQ treatment on QT interval. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the electrocardiograms of 819 patients treated with HCQ for rheumatologic diseases from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was corrected QT (QTc) interval, by Bazett formula, during HCQ therapy. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 64.0 ± 10.9 years, and 734 patients (90%) were men. Median dosage of HCQ was 400 mg daily, and median (25th-75th percentile) duration of HCQ therapy was 1006 (471-2075) days. Mean on-treatment QTc was 430.9 ± 31.8 ms. In total, 55 patients (7%) had QTc 470-500 ms, and 12 (1.5%) had QTc >500 ms. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), history of atrial fibrillation (AF), and heart failure were independent risk factors for prolonged QTc. In a subset of 591 patients who also had a pretreatment electrocardiogram, mean QTc increased from 424.4 ± 29.7 ms to 432.0 ± 32.3 ms (P <.0001) during HCQ treatment. Of these patients, 23 (3.9%) had either prolongation of QTc >15% or on-treatment QTc >500 ms. Over median 5.97 (3.33-10.11) years of follow-up, 269 patients (33%) died. QTc >470 ms during HCQ treatment was associated with a greater mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.71; P = .008) in univariable but not in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: HCQ is associated with QT prolongation in a significant fraction of patients. The risk of QT prolongation is higher among patients with CKD, AF, and heart failure, who may benefit from greater scrutiny.