Equity in the Setting of Heart Failure Diagnosis: An Analysis of Differences Between and Within Clinician Practices.

BACKGROUND: Timely heart failure (HF) diagnosis can lead to earlier intervention and reduced morbidity. Among historically marginalized patients, new-onset HF diagnosis is more likely to occur in acute care settings (emergency department or inpatient hospitalization) than outpatient settings. Whether inequity within outpatient clinician practices affects diagnosis settings is unknown. METHODS: We determined the setting of incident HF diagnosis among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries between 2013 and 2017. We identified sociodemographic and medical characteristics associated with HF diagnosis in the acute care setting. Within each outpatient clinician practice, we compared acute care diagnosis rates across sociodemographic characteristics: female versus male sex, non-Hispanic White versus other racial and ethnic groups, and dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible (a surrogate for low income) versus nondual-eligible patients. Based on within-practice differences in acute diagnosis rates, we stratified clinician practices by equity (high, intermediate, and low) and compared clinician practice characteristics. RESULTS: Among 315 439 Medicare patients with incident HF, 173 121 (54.9%) were first diagnosed in acute care settings. Higher adjusted acute care diagnosis rates were associated with female sex (6.4% [95% CI, 6.1%-6.8%]), American Indian (3.6% [95% CI, 1.1%-6.1%]) race, and dual eligibility (4.1% [95% CI, 3.7%-4.5%]). These differences persisted within clinician practices. With clinician practice adjustment, dual-eligible patients had a 4.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.4%) greater acute care diagnosis rate than nondual-eligible patients. Clinician practices with greater equity across dual eligibility also had greater equity across sex and race and ethnicity and were more likely to be composed of predominantly primary care clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in HF diagnosis rates in the acute care setting between and within clinician practices highlight an opportunity to improve equity in diagnosing historically marginalized patients.

Opportunistic assessment of ischemic heart disease risk using abdominopelvic computed tomography and medical record data: a multimodal explainable artificial intelligence approach.

Current risk scores using clinical risk factors for predicting ischemic heart disease (IHD) events-the leading cause of global mortality-have known limitations and may be improved by imaging biomarkers. While body composition (BC) imaging biomarkers derived from abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) correlate with IHD risk, they are impractical to measure manually. Here, in a retrospective cohort of 8139 contrast-enhanced abdominopelvic CT examinations undergoing up to 5 years of follow-up, we developed multimodal opportunistic risk assessment models for IHD by automatically extracting BC features from abdominal CT images and integrating these with features from each patient's electronic medical record (EMR). Our predictive methods match and, in some cases, outperform clinical risk scores currently used in IHD risk assessment. We provide clinical interpretability of our model using a new method of determining tissue-level contributions from CT along with weightings of EMR features contributing to IHD risk. We conclude that such a multimodal approach, which automatically integrates BC biomarkers and EMR data, can enhance IHD risk assessment and aid primary prevention efforts for IHD. To further promote research, we release the Opportunistic L3 Ischemic heart disease (OL3I) dataset, the first public multimodal dataset for opportunistic CT prediction of IHD.

ACC/AHA/ASE/ASNC/ASPC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2023 Multimodality Appropriate Use Criteria for the Detection and Risk Assessment of Chronic Coronary Disease.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Foundation, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of stress testing and anatomic diagnostic procedures for risk assessment and evaluation of known or suspected chronic coronary disease (CCD), formerly referred to as stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). This document reflects an updating of the prior Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) published for radionuclide imaging, stress echocardiography (echo), calcium scoring, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), and invasive coronary angiography for SIHD. This is in keeping with the commitment to revise and refine the AUC on a frequent basis. As with the prior version of this document, rating of test modalities is provided side-by-side for a given clinical scenario. These ratings are explicitly not considered competitive rankings due to the limited availability of comparative evidence, patient variability, and the range of capabilities available in any given local setting1-4.This version of the AUC for CCD is a focused update of the prior version of the AUC for SIHD4. Key changes beyond the updated ratings based on new evidence include the following: 1. Clinical scenarios related to preoperative testing were removed and will be incorporated into another AUC document under development. 2. Some clinical scenarios and tables were removed in an effort to simplify the selection of clinical scenarios. Additionally, the flowchart of tables has been reorganized, and all clinical scenario tables can now be reached by answering a limited number of clinical questions about the patient, starting with the patient's symptom status. 3. Several clinical scenarios have been revised to incorporate changes in other documents such as pretest probability assessment, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk assessment, syncope, and others. ASCVD risk factors that are not accounted for in contemporary risk calculators have been added as modifiers to certain clinical scenarios. The 64 clinical scenarios rated in this document are limited to the detection and risk assessment of CCD and were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines.5 These clinical scenarios do not specifically address patients having acute chest pain episodes. They may, however, be applicable in the inpatient setting if the patient is not having an acute coronary syndrome and warrants evaluation for CCD.Using standardized methodology, clinical scenarios were developed to describe common patient encounters in clinical practice focused on common applications and anticipated uses of testing for CCD. Where appropriate, the scenarios were developed on the basis of the most current ACC/American Heart Association guidelines. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios in this document on a scale of 1 to 9, following a modified Delphi process consistent with the recently updated AUC development methodology. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that a modality is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented, midrange scores of 4 to 6 indicate that a modality may be appropriate for the clinical scenario, and scores of 1 to 3 indicate that a modality is rarely appropriate.

Comparison of Characteristics and Outcomes of Veterans With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Enrolled in the COURAGE Trial Versus the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking Program.

Randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated a survival benefit with percutaneous coronary intervention in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). We evaluated the generalizability of the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial findings to the broader population of veterans with SIHD. Veterans who underwent coronary angiography between 2005 and 2013 for SIHD were identified from the Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting and Tracking Program (VA CART). Patient-level comparisons were made between patients from VA CART who met the eligibility criteria for COURAGE and veterans enrolled in COURAGE between 1999 and 2004. All-cause mortality over long-term follow-up was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. COURAGE-eligible patients from VA CART (n = 59,758) were older, had a higher body mass index, a greater prevalence of co-morbidities, but fewer diseased vessels on index coronary angiography, and were less likely to be on optimal medical therapy at baseline and on 1-year follow-up compared with VA COURAGE participants (n = 968). Patients from VA CART (median follow-up 6.5 years) had higher all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.98 [1.61 to 2.43]) than participants from VA COURAGE (median follow-up: 4.6 years). Risks of mortality were greater in the 56.4% patients from CART who were medically managed (aHR 1.94 [1.49 to 2.53]) and in the 43.6% who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (aHR 1.99 [1.45 to 2.74]), compared with their respective VA COURAGE arms. In conclusion, in this noncontemporaneous patient-level analysis, veterans in the randomized COURAGE trial had more favorable outcomes than the population of veterans with SIHD at large.

Disparity in the Setting of Incident Heart Failure Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Early heart failure (HF) recognition can reduce morbidity, yet HF is often initially diagnosed only after a patient clinically worsens. We sought to identify characteristics that predict diagnosis in the acute care setting versus the outpatient setting. METHODS: We estimated the proportion of incident HF diagnosed in the acute care setting (inpatient hospital or emergency department) versus outpatient setting based on diagnostic codes from a claims database covering commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage between 2003 and 2019. After excluding new-onset HF potentially caused by a concurrent acute cause (eg, acute myocardial infarction), we identified demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic predictors of diagnosis setting. Patients were linked to their primary care clinicians to evaluate diagnosis setting variation across clinicians. RESULTS: Of 959 438 patients with new HF, 38% were diagnosed in acute care. Of these, 46% had potential HF symptoms in the prior 6 months. Over time, the relative odds of acute care diagnosis increased by 3.2% annually after adjustment for patient characteristics (95% CI, 3.1%-3.3%). Acute care diagnosis setting was more likely for women compared with men (adjusted odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.10-1.12]) and for Black patients compared with White patients (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.16-1.19]). The proportion of acute care diagnosis varied substantially (interquartile range: 24%-39%) among clinicians after adjusting for patient-level risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of first HF diagnoses occur in the acute care setting, particularly among women and Black patients, yet many had potential HF symptoms in the months before acute care visits. These results raise concerns that many HF diagnoses are missed in the outpatient setting. Earlier diagnosis could allow for timelier high-value interventions, addressing disparities and reducing the progression of HF.

Perfusion Assessment in Left-Sided/Low Anterior Resection (PILLAR III): A Randomized, Controlled, Parallel, Multicenter Study Assessing Perfusion Outcomes With PINPOINT Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging in Low Anterior Resection.

BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green fluoroscopy has been shown to improve anastomotic leak rates in early phase trials. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the use of fluoroscopy to ensure anastomotic perfusion may decrease anastomotic leak after low anterior resection. DESIGN: We performed a 1:1 randomized controlled parallel study. Recruitment of 450 to 1000 patients was planned over 2 years. SETTINGS: This was a multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Included patients were those undergoing resection defined as anastomosis within 10 cm of the anal verge. INTERVENTION: Patients underwent standard evaluation of tissue perfusion versus standard in conjunction with perfusion evaluation using indocyanine green fluoroscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was anastomotic leak, with secondary outcomes of perfusion assessment and the rate of postoperative abscess requiring intervention. RESULTS: This study was concluded early because of decreasing accrual rates. A total of 25 centers recruited 347 patients, of whom 178 were randomly assigned to perfusion and 169 to standard. The groups had comparable tumor-specific and patient-specific demographics. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation was performed in 63.5% of perfusion and 65.7% of standard (p > 0.05). Mean level of anastomosis was 5.2 ± 3.1 cm in perfusion compared with 5.2 ± 3.3 cm in standard (p > 0.05). Sufficient visualization of perfusion was reported in 95.4% of patients in the perfusion group. Postoperative abscess requiring surgical management was reported in 5.7% of perfusion and 4.2% of standard (p = 0.75). Anastomotic leak was reported in 9.0% of perfusion compared with 9.6% of standard (p = 0.37). On multivariate regression analysis, there was no difference in anastomotic leak rates between perfusion and standard (OR = 0.845 (95% CI, 0.375-1.905); p = 0.34). LIMITATIONS: The predetermined sample size to adequately reduce the risk of type II error was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Successful visualization of perfusion can be achieved with indocyanine green fluoroscopy. However, no difference in anastomotic leak rates was observed between patients who underwent perfusion assessment versus standard surgical technique. In experienced hands, the addition of routine indocyanine green fluoroscopy to standard practice adds no evident clinical benefit. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B560. VALORACIN DE LA IRRIGACIN DE LADO IZQUIERDO/RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA PILAR III UN ESTUDIO ALEATORIZADO, CONTROLADO, PARALELO Y MULTICNTRICO QUE EVALA LOS RESULTADOS DE LA IRRIGACIN CON PINPOINT IMGENES DE FLUORESCENCIA CERCANA AL INFRARROJO EN LA RESECCIN ANTERIOR BAJA: ANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que la fluoroscopia con verde de indocianina mejora las tasas de fuga anastomótica en ensayos en fases iniciales.OBJETIVO:Nuestra hipótesis es que la utilización de fluoroscopia para asegurar la irrigación anastomótica puede disminuir la fuga anastomótica luego de una resección anterior baja.DISEÑO:Realizamos un estudio paralelo, controlado, aleatorizado 1:1. Se planificó el reclutamiento de 450-1000 pacientes durante 2 años.AMBITO:Multicéntrico.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resección definida como una anastomosis dentro de los 10cm del margen anal.INTERVENCIÓN:Pacientes que se sometieron a la evaluación estándar de la irrigación tisular contra la estándar en conjunto con la valoración de la irrigación mediante fluoroscopia con verde indocianina.PRINCIPALES VARIABLES EVALUADAS:El principal resultado fue la fuga anastomótica, y los resultados secundarios fueron la evaluación de la perfusión y la tasa de absceso posoperatorio que requirió intervención.RESULTADOS:Este estudio se cerró anticipadamente debido a la disminución de las tasas de acumulación. Un total de 25 centros reclutaron a 347 pacientes, de los cuales 178 fueron, de manera aleatoria, asignados a perfusión y 169 a estándar. Los grupos tenían datos demográficos específicos del tumor y del paciente similares. Recibieron quimio-radioterapia neoadyuvante el 63,5% de la perfusión y el 65,7% del estándar (p> 0,05). La anastomosis estuvo en un nivel promedio de 5,2 + 3,1 cm en perfusión en comparación con 5,2 + 3,3 cm en estándar (p> 0,05). Se reportó una visualización suficiente de la perfusión en el 95,4% de los pacientes del grupo de perfusión. El absceso posoperatorio que requirió tratamiento quirúrgico fue de 5,7% de los perfusion y en el 4,2% del estándar (p = 0,75). Se informó fuga anastomótica en el 9,0% de la perfusión en comparación con el 9,6% del estándar (p = 0,37). En el análisis de regresión multivariante, no hubo diferencias en las tasas de fuga anastomótica entre la perfusión y el estándar (OR 0,845; IC del 95% (0,375; 1,905); p = 0,34).LIMITACIONES:No se logró el tamaño de muestra predeterminado para reducir satisfactoriamente el riesgo de error tipo II.CONCLUSIÓN:Se puede obtener una visualización adecuada de la perfusión con ICG-F. Sin embargo, no se observaron diferencias en las tasas de fuga anastomótica entre los pacientes que se sometieron a evaluación de la perfusión versus la técnica quirúrgica estándar. En manos expertas, agregar ICG-F a la rutina de la práctica estándar no agrega ningún beneficio clínico evidente. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B560. (Traducción-Dr Juan Antonio Villanueva-Herrero).

Primary Prevention Trial Designs Using Coronary Imaging: A National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is considered a useful test for enhancing risk assessment in the primary prevention setting. Clinical trials are under consideration. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a multidisciplinary working group on August 26 to 27, 2019, in Bethesda, Maryland, to review available evidence and consider the appropriateness of conducting further research on coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing, or other coronary imaging studies, as a way of informing decisions for primary preventive treatments for cardiovascular disease. The working group concluded that additional evidence to support current guideline recommendations for use of CAC in middle-age adults is very likely to come from currently ongoing trials in that age group, and a new trial is not likely to be timely or cost effective. The current trials will not, however, address the role of CAC testing in younger adults or older adults, who are also not addressed in existing guidelines, nor will existing trials address the potential benefit of an opportunistic screening strategy made feasible by the application of artificial intelligence. Innovative trial designs for testing the value of CAC across the lifespan were strongly considered and represent important opportunities for additional research, particularly those that leverage existing trials or other real-world data streams including clinical computed tomography scans. Sex and racial/ethnic disparities in cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, and inclusion of diverse participants in future CAC trials, particularly those based in the United States, would enhance the potential impact of these studies.

Baseline Predictors of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Systolic Blood Pressure Goal Attainment After 1 Year in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Risk factor control is the cornerstone of managing stable ischemic heart disease but is often not achieved. Predictors of risk factor control in a randomized clinical trial have not been described. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) randomized individuals with at least moderate inducible ischemia and obstructive coronary artery disease to an initial invasive or conservative strategy in addition to optimal medical therapy. The primary aim of this analysis was to determine predictors of meeting trial goals for LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, goal <70 mg/dL) or systolic blood pressure (SBP, goal <140 mm Hg) at 1 year post-randomization. We included all randomized participants in the ISCHEMIA trial with baseline and 1-year LDL-C and SBP values by January 28, 2019. Among the 3984 ISCHEMIA participants (78% of 5179 randomized) with available data, 35% were at goal for LDL-C, and 65% were at goal for SBP at baseline. At 1 year, the percent at goal increased to 52% for LDL-C and 75% for SBP. Adjusted odds of 1-year LDL-C goal attainment were greater with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.20] per 10 years), lower baseline LDL-C (OR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.17-1.22] per 10 mg/dL), high-intensity statin use (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.12-1.51]), nonwhite race (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.07-1.63]), and North American enrollment compared with other regions (OR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.06-1.66]). Women were less likely than men to achieve 1-year LDL-C goal (OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]). Adjusted odds of 1-year SBP goal attainment were greater with lower baseline SBP (OR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.22-1.33] per 10 mm Hg) and with North American enrollment (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.04-1.76]). CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, older age, male sex, high-intensity statin use, lower baseline LDL-C, and North American location predicted 1-year LDL-C goal attainment, whereas lower baseline SBP and North American location predicted 1-year SBP goal attainment. Future studies should examine the effects of sex disparities, international practice patterns, and provider behavior on risk factor control.

Cost-effectiveness of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with coronary artery disease: Results from the MASS III trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have reported similar clinical outcomes between on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). However, long-term cost-effectiveness of these strategies is unknown. METHODS: A prespecified economic study was performed based on the MASS III trial. Costs were estimated for all patients based on observed healthcare resource usage over a 5-year follow-up. Health state utilities were evaluated with the SF-6D questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using a Markov model. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with the Monte-Carlo simulation and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve were used to address uncertainty. RESULTS: Quality of life improved significantly in both groups during follow-up compared with baseline. At 5 years, when comparing on-pump and off-pump CABG groups, no differences were found in cumulative life-years (4.851 and 4.766 years, P = .319) and QALY gained (4.150 and 4.105 QALYs, P = .332). Mean cost in US dollars per patient during the trial did not differ significantly between the on-pump and off-pump groups ($5890.29 and $5674.75, respectively, P = .409). Over a lifetime horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of on-pump versus off-pump CABG was $12,576 per QALY gained, which is above the suggested cost-effectiveness threshold range (from $3210 to 10,122). In the sensitivity analysis, the probability that on-pump CABG is cost-effective compared to off-pump surgery for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $3212 per QALY gained was <1%. For the $10,122 per QALY threshold, the same probability was 35%. CONCLUSION: This decision-analytic model suggests that on-pump CABG is not cost-effective when compared to off-pump CABG from a public health system perspective.

Association Between Intensity of Statin Therapy and Mortality in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

Importance: High-intensity statin therapy is recommended for the secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Nevertheless, statin therapy in general, and high-intensity statin therapy in particular, is underused in patients with established ASCVD. Objective: To determine the association between all-cause mortality and intensity of statin therapy in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of patients aged 21 to 84 years with ASCVD treated in the Veterans Affairs health care system from April 1, 2013, to April 1, 2014. Patients who were included had 1 or more International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for ASCVD on 2 or more different dates in the prior 2 years. Exposures: Intensity of statin therapy was defined by the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, and use was defined as a filled prescription in the prior 6 months. Patients were excluded if they were taking a higher statin dose in the prior 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death from all causes adjusted for the propensity to receive high-intensity statins. Results: The study sample included 509 766 eligible adults with ASCVD at baseline (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [8.8] years; 499 598 men and 10 168 women), including 150 928 (29.6%) receiving high-intensity statin therapy, 232 293 (45.6%) receiving moderate-intensity statin therapy, 33 920 (6.7%) receiving low-intensity statin therapy, and 92 625 (18.2%) receiving no statins. During a mean follow-up of 492 days, there was a graded association between intensity of statin therapy and mortality, with 1-year mortality rates of 4.0% (5103 of 126 139) for those receiving high-intensity statin therapy, 4.8% (9703 of 200 709) for those receiving moderate-intensity statin therapy, 5.7% (1632 of 28 765) for those receiving low-intensity statin therapy, and 6.6% (4868 of 73 728) for those receiving no statin (P < .001). After adjusting for the propensity to receive high-intensity statins, the hazard ratio for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93) for those receiving high- vs moderate-intensity statins. The magnitude of benefit of high- vs moderate-intensity statins was similar, for an incident cohort hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.01). For patients aged 76 to 84 years, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95). Patients treated with maximal doses of high-intensity statins had lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94) compared with those receiving submaximal doses. Conclusions and Relevance: We found a graded association between intensity of statin therapy and mortality in a national sample of patients with ASCVD. High-intensity statins were associated with a small but significant survival advantage compared with moderate-intensity statins, even among older adults. Maximal doses of high-intensity statins were associated with a further survival benefit.

Use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the Veterans Affairs Health System: Practice impact of the new cholesterol guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The November 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines recommend the use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We sought to determine how these guidelines are being adopted at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System and identify treatment gaps. METHODS: We examined administrative data from the VA 12 months prior to the index dates of April 1, 2013, and after April 1, 2014, to identify patients ≤75 years of age with ≥2 codes for ASCVD. We identified those on high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, and simvastatin 80 mg) during the 6 months after the index date. RESULTS: The study sample included 331,927 and 326,759 eligible adults with ASCVD before and after the release of the new guidelines, respectively. Overall, high-intensity statin use increased from 28% to 35% after guideline release. High-intensity statin use was lowest in Hispanics and Native Americans, although all groups showed an increase over time. Among those on low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy, 15.6% were intensified to a high-intensity statin after guideline release. Groups less likely to undergo statin intensification were older adults (odds ratio=0.78 for each 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.76-0.81), women (odds ratio=0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99), and certain minority groups. Academic teaching hospitals and hospitals on the West Coast were more likely to intensify statins after release of the new guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity statin use increased in the VA following release of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guidelines, although disparities persist for certain patient groups including older adults, women, and certain minority groups.

Effect of PCI on Long-Term Survival in Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) relieves angina in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, but clinical trials have not shown that it improves survival. Between June 1999 and January 2004, we randomly assigned 2287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease to an initial management strategy of optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group) or optimal medical therapy plus PCI (PCI group) and did not find a significant difference in the rate of survival during a median follow-up of 4.6 years. We now report the rate of survival among the patients who were followed for up to 15 years. METHODS: We obtained permission from the patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites and some non-VA sites in the United States to use their Social Security numbers to track their survival after the original trial period ended. We searched the VA national Corporate Data Warehouse and the National Death Index for survival information and the dates of death from any cause. We calculated survival according to the Kaplan-Meier method and used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Extended survival information was available for 1211 patients (53% of the original population). The median duration of follow-up for all patients was 6.2 years (range, 0 to 15); the median duration of follow-up for patients at the sites that permitted survival tracking was 11.9 years (range, 0 to 15). A total of 561 deaths (180 during the follow-up period in the original trial and 381 during the extended follow-up period) occurred: 284 deaths (25%) in the PCI group and 277 (24%) in the medical-therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: During an extended-follow-up of up to 15 years, we did not find a difference in survival between an initial strategy of PCI plus medical therapy and medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. (Funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program and others; COURAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.).

Prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on long-term mortality: insight from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III).

BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.

Prognostic importance of coronary anatomy and left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal therapy: assessment of residual risk in the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if baseline angiographic findings can be used to estimate residual risk of patients with chronic stable angina treated with both optimal medical therapy (OMT) and protocol-assigned or symptom-driven percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome were adjudicated in 2,275 COURAGE patients. The number of vessels diseased (VD) was defined as the number of major coronary arteries with ≥50% diameter stenosis. Proximal left anterior descending, either isolated or in combination with other disease, was also evaluated. Depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was defined as ≤50%. Cox regression analyses included these anatomical factors as well as interaction terms for initial treatment assignment (OMT or OMT + PCI). RESULTS: Percutaneous coronary intervention and proximal left anterior descending did not influence any outcome. Death was predicted by low LVEF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.86, CI 1.34-2.59, P < .001) and VD (HR 1.45, CI 1.20-1.75, P < .001). Myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome were predicted only by VD (HR 1.53, CI 1.30-1.81 and HR 1.24, CI 1.06-1.44, P = .007, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In spite of OMT and irrespective of protocol-assigned or clinically driven PCI, LVEF and angiographic burden of disease at baseline retain prognostic power and reflect residual risk for secondary ischemic events.

Risk stratification in acute heart failure: rationale and design of the STRATIFY and DECIDE studies.

BACKGROUND: A critical challenge for physicians facing patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute heart failure (AHF) is how and where to best manage them. Currently, most patients evaluated for AHF are admitted to the hospital, yet not all warrant inpatient care. Up to 50% of admissions could be potentially avoided and many admitted patients could be discharged after a short period of observation and treatment. Methods for identifying patients that can be sent home early are lacking. Improving the physician's ability to identify and safely manage low-risk patients is essential to avoiding unnecessary use of hospital beds. METHODS: Two studies (STRATIFY and DECIDE) have been funded by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute with the goal of developing prediction rules to facilitate early decision making in AHF. Using prospectively gathered evaluation and treatment data from the acute setting (STRATIFY) and early inpatient stay (DECIDE), rules will be generated to predict risk for death and serious complications. Subsequent studies will be designed to test the external validity, utility, generalizability and cost-effectiveness of these prediction rules in different acute care environments representing racially and socioeconomically diverse patient populations. RESULTS: A major innovation is prediction of 5-day as well as 30-day outcomes, overcoming the limitation that 30-day outcomes are highly dependent on unpredictable, post-visit patient and provider behavior. A novel aspect of the proposed project is the use of a comprehensive cardiology review to correctly assign post-treatment outcomes to the acute presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Finally, a rigorous analysis plan has been developed to construct the prediction rules that will maximally extract both the statistical and clinical properties of every data element. Upon completion of this study we will subsequently externally test the prediction rules in a heterogeneous patient cohort.

The cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention as a function of angina severity in patients with stable angina.

BACKGROUND: The COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) to OMT alone in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events in 2287 patients with stable coronary disease. We examined the cost-effectiveness of PCI as a function of angina severity at the time of randomization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Angina severity was assessed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ). Patients were grouped into tertiles based on the distribution of baseline scores such that higher tertiles represented better health status. Clinically significant improvement from baseline within individual patients was defined as score increases of >8 for physical limitation, >20 for angina frequency, and >16 for quality-of-life domains. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCI was calculated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in proportion of patients with clinically significant improvement. Improvement in angina severity was significantly greater for PCI patients in the lowest and middle tertiles. The number of patients needed to treat was much larger for the highest tertile. The added in-trial cost of PCI ranged from $7300 to $13 000. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from $80 000 to $330 000 for the lowest and middle tertiles and from $520 000 to >$3 million for the highest tertile for 1 additional patient to achieve significant clinical improvement in health status. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost of PCI to provide meaningful clinical benefit above that achieved by OMT alone was lower for patients with severe angina than for those with mild or no angina. However, it is uncertain that at any level of angina severity that PCI as an initial strategy would achieve a socially acceptable cost threshold. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00007657.

Health-risk appraisal with or without disease management for worksite cardiovascular risk reduction.

BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: Worksite health promotion programs use health risk appraisal (HRA) surveys to identify employees at increased risk, then provide a range of interventions to encourage high-risk individuals to improve their health. Our objective was to determine how the intensity of intervention after HRA affected cardiovascular risk after 1 year, comparing individual follow-up counseling with environmental supports. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 133 employees of Vanderbilt University with cardiovascular risk factors were randomly assigned to worksite HRA plus targeted disease management (DM group) or HRA plus information about worksite health promotion programs (HRA group). The DM group received longitudinal individualized counseling for risk reduction, whereas the HRA group members received one feedback session about their risk factors and information about free worksite health promotion programs. The main outcome measure was the difference between groups in the change in average Framingham risk score from baseline to 1 year. RESULTS: There was no significant baseline difference between groups in the Framingham risk score. Among DM participants, the mean (SD) Framingham risk score decreased by 22.6%; among HRA participants, the mean score rose by 4.3% (P = .017 for the difference between groups). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of employees with cardiovascular risk factors, HRA followed by individual counseling was more effective than providing information about free worksite health promotion programs.