Impact of risk factor control on peripheral artery disease outcomes and health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with modifiable atherosclerotic risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking. However, the effect of risk factor control on outcomes and disparities in achieving control is less well understood. METHODS: All patients in an integrated, regional health system with PAD-related encounters, fee-for-service Medicare, and clinical risk factor control data were identified. Component risk factors were dichotomized into controlled and uncontrolled categories (control defined as low-density lipoprotein < 100 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c < 7.0%, SBP < 140 mmHg, and current nonsmoker) and composite categories (none, 1, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled RFs) created. The primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and lower-extremity revascularization and amputation). RESULTS: The cohort included 781 patients with PAD, average age 72.5 ± 9.8 years, of whom 30.1% were Black, and 19.1% were Medicaid dual-enrolled. In this cohort, 260 (33.3%) had no uncontrolled risk factors and 200 (25.6%) had two or more uncontrolled risk factors. Patients with the poorest risk factor control were more likely to be Black (p < 0.001), Medicaid dual-enrolled (p < 0.001), and have chronic limb-threatening ischemia (p = 0.009). Significant differences in MAVE by degree of risk factor control were observed at 30 days (none uncontrolled: 5.8%, 1 uncontrolled: 11.5%, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled: 13.6%; p = 0.01) but not at 1 year (p = 0.08). risk factor control was not associated with outcomes at 1 year after adjustment for patient and PAD-specific characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: risk factor control is poor among patients with PAD. Significant disparities in achieving optimal risk factor control represent a potential target for reducing inequities in outcomes.

Clinician Specialty, Access to Care, and Outcomes Among Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the relationship between patterns of peripheral artery disease and outcomes is an essential step toward improving care and outcomes. We hypothesized that clinician specialty would be associated with occurrence of major adverse vascular events (MAVE). METHODS: Patients with at least 1 peripheral artery disease-related encounter in our health system and fee-for-service Medicare were divided into groups based on the specialty of the clinician (ie, cardiologist, surgeon, podiatrist, primary care, or other) providing a plurality of peripheral artery disease-coded care in the year prior to index encounter. The primary outcome was MAVE (a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, lower extremity revascularization, and lower extremity amputation). RESULTS: The cohort included 1768 patients, of whom 30.0% were Black, 23.9% were Medicaid dual-enrollment eligible, and 31.1% lived in rural areas. Patients receiving a plurality of their care from podiatrists had the highest 1-year rates of MAVE (34.4%, P <.001), hospitalization (65.9%, P <.001), and amputations (22.6%, P <.001). Clinician specialty was not associated with outcomes after adjustment. Patients who were Medicaid dual-eligible had higher adjusted risks of mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-2.14) and all-cause hospitalization (HRadj 1.20, 95% CI 1.03-1.40) and patients who were Black had a higher adjusted risk of amputation (HRadj 1.49, 95% CI 1.03-2.15). CONCLUSIONS: Clinician specialty was not associated with worse outcomes after adjustment, but certain socioeconomic factors were. The effects of clinician specialty and socioeconomic status were likely attenuated by the fact that all patients in this study had health insurance; these analyses require confirmation in a more representative cohort.

Clinical Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Background Sacubitril/Valsartan has been highly efficacious in randomized trials of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in real-world US practice is unclear. Methods and Results This study included Medicare beneficiaries age ≥65 years who were hospitalized for HFrEF ≤40% in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry between October 2015 and December 2018, and eligible for sacubitril/valsartan. Associations between discharge prescription of sacubitril/valsartan and clinical outcomes were assessed after inverse probability of treatment weighting and adjustment for other HFrEF medications. Overall, 1551 (10.9%) patients were discharged on sacubitril/valsartan. Of those not prescribed sacubitril/valsartan, 7857 (62.0%) were prescribed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker. Over 12-month follow-up, compared with a discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004) but not all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.07; P=0.55) or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.91-1.18; P=0.59). Patients prescribed sacubitril/valsartan versus those without a prescription had lower risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.79; P<0.001), all-cause hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.98; P=0.02), but not heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.08; P=0.40). Conclusions Among patients hospitalized for HFrEF, prescription of sacubitril/valsartan at discharge was independently associated with reduced postdischarge mortality compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker, and reduced mortality and all-cause hospitalization compared with no sacubitril/valsartan. These findings support the use of sacubitril/valsartan to improve postdischarge outcomes among older patients hospitalized for HFrEF in routine US clinical practice.

The association of healthcare disparities and patient-specific factors on clinical outcomes in peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: PAD increases the risk of cardiovascular mortality and limb loss, and disparities in treatment and outcomes have been described. However, the association of patient-specific characteristics with variation in outcomes is less well known. METHODS: Patients with PAD from Duke University Health System (DUHS) between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 were identified. PAD status was confirmed through ground truth adjudication and predictive modeling using diagnosis codes, procedure codes, and other administrative data. Symptom severity, lower extremity imaging, and ankle-brachial index (ABI) were manually abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Data was linked to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data to provide longitudinal follow up. Primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE), a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, lower extremity revascularization and amputation. RESULTS: Of 1,768 patients with PAD, 31.6% were asymptomatic, 41.2% had intermittent claudication (IC), and 27.3% had chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). At 1 year, patients with CLTI had higher rates of MAVE compared with asymptomatic or IC patients. CLTI and Medicaid dual eligibility were independent predictors of mortality. CLTI and Black race were associated with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of MAVE were highest in patients with CLTI, but patients with IC or asymptomatic disease also had high rates of adverse events. Black and Medicaid dual-eligible patients were disproportionately present in the CLTI subgroup and were at higher risk of amputation and mortality, respectively. Future studies must focus on early identification of high-risk patient groups to improve outcomes in patients with PAD.

Patient Perceptions and Familiarity With Medical Therapy for Heart Failure.

Importance: There are major gaps in use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF). Patient-reported data outlining patient goals and preferences associated with GDMT are not available. Objective: To survey patients with chronic HF to better understand their experiences and perceptions of living with HF, including their familiarity and concerns with important GDMT therapies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Study participants were recruited from the GfK KnowledgePanel, a probability-sampled online panel representative of the US adult population. English-speaking adults who met the following criteria were eligible if they were (1) previously told by a physician that they had HF; (2) currently taking medications for HF; and (3) had no history of left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant. Data were collected between October and November 2018. Analysis began in December 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey included 4 primary domains: (1) relative importance of disease-related goals, (2) challenges associated with living with HF, (3) decision-making process associated with HF medication use, and (4) awareness and concerns about available HF medications. Results: Of 30 707 KnowledgePanel members who received the initial survey, 15 091 (49.1%) completed the screening questions, 440 were eligible and began the survey, and 429 completed the survey. The median (interquartile range) age was 68 (60-75) years and most were white (320 [74.6%]), male (304 [70.9%]), and had at least a high school education (409 [95.3%]). Most survey responders reported familiarity with ß-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics. Overall, 107 (24.9%) reported familiarity with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Overall, 136 patients (42.5%) reported have safety concerns regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and 133 (38.5%) regarding ß-blockers, 35 (37.9%) regarding mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 38 (36.5%) regarding angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and 123 (37.2%) regarding diuretics. Between 27.7% (n = 26) and 38.5% (n = 136) reported concerns regarding the effectiveness of ß-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or diuretics, while 41% (n = 132) were concerned with the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, many patients were not familiar with GDMT for HF, with familiarity lowest for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Among patients not familiar with these therapies, significant proportions questioned their effectiveness and/or safety. Enhanced patient education and shared decision-making support may be effective strategies to improve the uptake of GDMT for HF in US clinical practice.

Relationship Between Hospital Characteristics and Early Adoption of Angiotensin-Receptor/Neprilysin Inhibitor Among Eligible Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

Background The angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor ( ARNI ) sacubitril/valsartan reduces hospitalization and mortality for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, adoption of ARNI into clinical practice has been slow. Factors influencing use of ARNI have not been fully elucidated. Using data from the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry, Hospital Compare, Dartmouth Atlas, and the American Hospital Association Survey, we sought to identify hospital characteristics associated with patient-level receipt of an ARNI prescription. Methods and Results We analyzed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were eligible for ARNI prescription (ejection fraction≤40%, no contraindications) and hospitalized from October 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. We used logistic regression to estimate the associations between hospital characteristics and patient ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals using generalized estimating equation methods and adjusting for patient-level covariates. Of 16 674 eligible hospitalizations from 210 hospitals, 1020 patients (6.1%) were prescribed ARNI at discharge. The median hospital-level proportion of patients prescribed ARNI was 3.3% (Q1, Q3: 0%, 12.6%). After adjustment for patient-level covariates, for-profit hospitals had significantly higher odds of ARNI prescription compared with not-for-profit hospitals (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI , 1.05-6.10; P=0.04), and hospitals located in the Western United States had lower odds of ARNI prescription compared with those in the Northeast (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI , 0.13-0.84; P=0.02). Conclusions Relatively few hospital characteristics were associated with ARNI prescription at hospital discharge, in contrast to what has been observed in early adoption in other disease areas. Additional evaluation of barriers to implementing new evidence into heart failure practice is needed.

Early Adoption of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Insights From Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF).

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence and variation in angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) prescription among a real-world population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved sacubitril/valsartan for patients with HFrEF in July 2015. Little is known about the early patterns of use of this novel therapy. METHODS: The study included patients discharged alive from hospitals in Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF), a registry of hospitalized patients with heart failure, between July 2015 and June 2016 who had documentation of whether ARNIs were prescribed at discharge. Patient and hospital characteristics were compared among patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) with and without ARNI prescription at discharge, excluding those with documented contraindications to ARNIs. To evaluate hospital variation, hospitals with at least 10 eligible hospitalizations during the study period were assessed. RESULTS: Of 21,078 patients hospitalized with HFrEF during the study period, 495 (2.3%) were prescribed ARNIs at discharge. Patients prescribed ARNIs were younger (median age 65 years vs. 70 years; p < 0.001), had lower ejection fractions (median 23% vs. 25%; p < 0.001), and had higher use of aldosterone antagonists (45% vs. 31%; p < 0.001) at discharge. At the 241 participating hospitals with 10 or more eligible admissions, 125 (52%) reported no discharge prescriptions of ARNIs. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2.3% of patients hospitalized for HFrEF in a national registry were prescribed ARNI therapy in the first 12 months following Food and Drug Administration approval. Further study is needed to identify and overcome barriers to implementing new evidence into practice, such as ARNI use among eligible patients with HFrEF.