IV Diuresis in Alternative Treatment Settings for the Management of Heart Failure: Implications for Mortality, Hospitalizations and Cost.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in heart failure (HF) care have sought to shift management from inpatient to outpatient and observation settings. We evaluated the association among HF treatment in the (1) inpatient; (2) observation; (3) emergency department (ED); and (4) outpatient settings with 30-day mortality, hospitalizations and cost. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare inpatient, outpatient and Part B files from 2011-2018, 1,534,708 unique patient encounters in which intravenous (IV) diuretics were received for a primary diagnosis of HF were identified. Encounters were sorted into mutually exclusive settings: (1) inpatient; (2) observation; (3) ED; or (4) outpatient IV diuretic clinic. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day hospitalization and total 30-day costs. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to examine the association between treatment location and the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Patients treated in observation and outpatient settings had lower 30-day mortality rates (observation OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.66-0.69; P < 0.001; outpatient OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.51-0.55; P < 0.001) compared to those treated in inpatient settings. Observation and outpatient treatment were also associated with decreased 30-day total cost compared to inpatient treatment. Observation relative cost -$5528.77, 95% CI -$5613.63 to -$5443.92; outpatient relative cost -$7005.95; 95% CI -$7103.94 to -$6907.96). Patients treated in the emergency department and discharged had increased mortality rates (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.13-1.17; P < 0.001) and increased rates of hospitalization (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.70-1.73; P < 0.001) compared to patients treated as inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries who received IV diuresis for acute HF in the outpatient and observation settings had lower mortality rates and decreased costs of care compared to patients treated as inpatients. Outpatient and observation management of acute decompensated HF, when available, is a safe and cost-effective strategy in certain populations of patients with HF.

Medicaid Expansion Under the Affordable Care Act and Association With Cardiac Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the Affordable Care Act was to improve health outcomes through expanding insurance, including through Medicaid expansion. We systematically reviewed the available literature on the association of Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion with cardiac outcomes. METHODS: Consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature using the keywords such as Medicaid expansion and cardiac, cardiovascular, or heart to identify titles published from 1/2014 to 7/2022 that evaluated the association between Medicaid expansion and cardiac outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 14 studies (47%) used a difference-in-difference study design and 10 (33%) used a multiple time series design. The median number of postexpansion years evaluated was 2 (range, 0.5-6) and the median number of expansion states included was 23 (range, 1-33). Commonly assessed outcomes included insurance coverage of and utilization of cardiac treatments (25.0%), morbidity/mortality (19.6%), disparities in care (14.3%), and preventive care (41.1%). Medicaid expansion was generally associated with increased insurance coverage, reduction in overall cardiac morbidity/mortality outside of acute care settings, and some increase in screening for and treatment of cardiac comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Current literature demonstrates that Medicaid expansion was generally associated with increased insurance coverage of cardiac treatments, improvement in cardiac outcomes outside of acute care settings, and some improvements in cardiac-focused prevention and screening. Conclusions are limited because quasi-experimental comparisons of expansion and nonexpansion states cannot account for unmeasured state-level confounders.

Mitral Regurgitation and Mortality Risk in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

The association of mitral regurgitation (MR) severity and mortality in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. We sought to evaluate the relation between MR severity on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and subsequent all-cause mortality in Medicare beneficiaries with HFpEF. We linked 57,608 patients referred for TTE at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to Medicare inpatient claims from 2003 to 2017. In those with a history of HF and a physician-reported left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, we evaluated the relation of MR severity and time to the primary end point of all-cause mortality using Kaplan-Meier methods. A total of 7,778 individuals (14.5%) met inclusion criteria (mean age 75.5 years ± 11.9, 55.9% female). Over a median follow-up of 8.1 years, 2,016 (25.9%) died at a median (interquartile range) of 1.7 (0.3 to 4.1) years. At 1 year, 15.8% with 3 to 4+ MR had died versus 10.5% with 0 to 2+ MR (hazard ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 1.95, p <0.001). After multivariable adjustment, 3 to 4+ MR continued to be associated with increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.94, p = 0.004) except in the subset with atrial fibrillation (interaction p = 0.03) or recent (<3 months) HF hospitalization (p = 0.54). In conclusion, in this large, single-institution retrospective study of Medicare beneficiaries with HFpEF who underwent TTE, moderate-to-severe and severe MR were significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality after multivariable adjustment, except in those with atrial fibrillation or recent HF. Prospective studies are needed to assess the role of MR reduction in mitigating this risk.

Performance in Federal Value-Based Programs of Hospitals Recognized by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology for High-Quality Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction Care.

Importance: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have implemented national value-based programs that incentivize hospitals to deliver better cardiovascular care. However, it is unclear how hospitals recognized for high-quality cardiovascular care by American Heart Association (AHA) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) national quality improvement initiatives (termed award hospitals) have performed under value-based programs. Objective: To determine if hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were less likely to be penalized under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) and the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program (VBP) compared with other hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional study included data from short-term acute care hospitals in the United States that were participating in the HRRP or VBP in fiscal year 2018. Exposures: Recognition awards for high-quality care from the AHA's Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure and ACC's Chest Pain-MI (myocardial infarction) Registry national quality improvement initiatives. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of hospitals that received a financial penalty or financial reward under the HRRP or VBP, median payment adjustments, and hospital-level 30-day mortality rates. Results: This study included 3175 hospitals participating in the HRRP and 2781 hospitals participating in the VBP in fiscal year 2018. Under the HRRP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received financial penalties compared with other hospitals (419 [85.5%] vs 2112 [78.7%]; P < .001), although payment reductions were similar (median, 0.39% [interquartile range (IQR), 0.08%-0.84%] vs 0.33% [IQR, 0.03%-0.89%]; P = .17). Under the VBP, a higher proportion of award hospitals received penalties compared with other hospitals (250 [51.7%] vs 950 [41.4%]; P < .001), and fewer award hospitals received financial rewards (234 [48.4%] vs 1347 [58.6%]; P < .001). Median payment reductions were higher for award hospitals than other hospitals (0.01% [IQR, 0.00%-0.38%] vs 0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.28%]; P < .001), and median payment increases were lower (0.0% [IQR, 0.00%-0.34%] vs 0.13% [IQR, 0.00%-0.60%]; P < .001). Thirty-day mortality at award hospitals was similar (acute myocardial infarction, 13.2% vs 13.2%; P = .76) or slightly lower (heart failure, 11.3% vs 11.7%; P = .001) compared with other hospitals. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals that received awards for high-quality cardiovascular care from the AHA/ACC were more likely to be penalized and less likely to be financially rewarded by federal value-based programs. These findings highlight the potential need to standardize measurement of cardiovascular care quality.