The influence of heart failure on clinical and economic outcomes among older adults ≥75 years of age with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the influence of heart failure (HF) on clinical and economic outcomes among older adults ≥75 years of age during their acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admission in large population-based study from the United States. We also evaluated the clinical characteristics associated with the presence of HF and the predictors of mortality, healthcare utilization, and cost among older adults with AMI. METHODS: From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2016, AMI admission was identified using the primary diagnosis and concomitant HF was identified using any non-primary diagnoses in the Premier Healthcare Database. RESULTS: Of the 468,654 patients examined, 42,946 (9%) had concomitant HF during their AMI admission. These patients were older, more often female, and were more likely to be White. Patients with concomitant HF were more likely to be frail than non-HF patients (59% vs 15%, P < .001). The mean (SD) Elixhauser comorbidity index was 2.6 (2.5) vs 0.4 (1.1), P < .001 in the AMI with HF vs AMI only group. The use of percutaneous coronary intervention in those with AMI and HF was lower than those with AMI only (15% vs 31%, P < .001). The overall mortality rate for those with HF was 12%, the median [IQR] hospital length of stay was 5 [3,9] days, and only 25% of patients were discharged home. A higher proportion of patients were discharged to rehabilitation or hospice if they had AMI and HF (Rehabilitation: 33% vs 20%, P < .001; Hospice: 5% vs 3%, P < .001). The mean unadjusted cost of an AMI hospitalization in patients with concomitant HF was lower ($12,411 ± $14,860) than in those without HF ($15,828 ± $19,330). After adjusting for age, gender, race, hypertension, frailty, revascularization strategy, and death, the average cost of hospitalization attributed to concomitant HF was +$1,075 (95% CI +876 to $1,274) when compared to AMI patients without HF. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥75 years of age, AMI with concomitant HF carries higher risk of death, but at ages ≥85 years, the risk difference diminishes due to other competing risks. HF was also associated with longer hospital length of stay and higher likelihood of referral to hospice and rehabilitation facilities when compared to older patients without HF. Care for these older adults is associated with increased hospitalization costs. Measures to identify HF in older adults during their AMI admission are necessary to optimize health outcomes, care delivery, and costs.

Use of Outpatient Intravenous Calcitropes for Heart Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient calcitrope infusions-that is, the cardiac inotropes milrinone and dobutamine-are often used for bridge to transplantation and palliation in advanced heart failure, but few data exist about the real-world use of these agents. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used the Symphony Integrated DataVerse of commercial, managed Medicare, and Medicaid insurance claims of approximately 280 million people (2012-2020) to determine the incidence and characteristics of ambulatory calcitrope use. Demographics were calculated, including geographic densities at the metropolitan statistical area level. A population projection normalized for age, sex, and location was extrapolated to the total US population. Ambulatory dispensing of milrinone was found in 10,533 outpatients, 1867 in 2019. Ambulatory dobutamine use was found in 4967 outpatients, 836 in 2019. The 2019 total US projection was 3411 for milrinone and 1281 for dobutamine. The mean age was 62 years for milrinone and 68 for dobutamine. Males represented 70% of use. There were differences between drugs in geographic distribution, with more milrinone use in the Northeast and South and more dobutamine use in the Midwest. Duration of use was 4.6 ± 7.2 months for milrinone and 1.8 ± 4.0 months for dobutamine. Of the patients receiving milrinone, 30.6% subsequently underwent cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device placement, whereas 10% receiving dobutamine went on to advanced therapies. Less than 0.5% of patients received calcitropes while enrolled in hospice care. CONCLUSIONS: More than 4000 patients receive outpatient infusion of calcitropes annually in the outpatient setting. Men are much more likely to receive these medications. A minority of the use is as a bridge to advanced therapies. Geographic variability in use suggests better evidence and consistent guidelines may be helpful.

Survival Following Edge-to-Edge Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock: A Nationwide Analysis.

Background Edge-to-edge transcatheter mitral valve repair as salvage therapy in high surgical risk patients with severe mitral regurgitation presenting with cardiogenic shock (CS) has been described in small case series, but large clinical results have not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of transcatheter mitral valve repair with MitraClip in patients with mitral regurgitation and CS using a large national database. Methods and Results From January 2014 to March 2019, we identified hospitalizations for CS in patients with mitral valve disease using data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Those with a prior surgical or percutaneous mitral valve intervention were excluded. We compared survival between patients who underwent MitraClip during the index hospitalization and those who did not using propensity-matched analysis. The analysis included 38 166 patients (mean age, 71±11 years, 41.6% women) of whom 622 (1.6%) underwent MitraClip. MitraClip was increasingly used during CS hospitalizations over the study period (P<0.001). After matching, patients receiving MitraClip had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47-0.77; P<0.001) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.88; P<0.001) compared with those without MitraClip. The survival benefit associated with MitraClip was consistent across subgroups of interest, with the exception of patients requiring acute mechanical circulatory support or hemodialysis at index. Conclusions In patients with mitral regurgitation presenting with CS, use of MitraClip is increasing and associated with greater in-hospital and 1-year survival. Further studies are warranted to optimize patient selection and procedure timing for those receiving MitraClip as a treatment option in CS.

Challenges and Potential Improvements to Patient Access to Pharmaceuticals: Examples From Cardiology.

Patient access to a drug after US regulatory approval is controlled by complex interactions between governmental and third-party payers, pharmacy benefit managers, distributers, manufacturers, health systems, and pharmacies that together mediate the receipt of goods by patients after prescription by clinicians. Recent medication approvals highlight why and how the distribution of clinically beneficial novel therapies is controlled. Although imposed limitations on availability may be rational considering the fiduciary responsibilities of payers and escalating spending on health care and pharmaceuticals, transparency and communication are lacking, and some utilization management may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Analysis of the current health insurance landscape suggests mechanisms by which patient access to appropriate medications can be improved and patient and clinician frustration reduced while acknowledging the financial realities of the pharmaceutical marketplace. We propose creation of a shared, standardized, and transparent process for coverage decisions that minimizes administrative barriers and is defensible on the basis of clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence. These reforms would benefit patients and improve the efficiency of the pharmaceutical system.

Streamlining and Reimagining Prior Authorization Under Value-Based Contracts: A Call to Action From the Value in Healthcare Initiative's Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative.

Utilization management strategies, including prior authorization, are commonly used to facilitate safe and guideline-adherent provision of new, individualized, and potentially costly cardiovascular therapies. However, as currently deployed, these approaches encumber multiple stakeholders. Patients are discouraged by barriers to appropriate access; clinicians are frustrated by the time, money, and resources required for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from the decision-making process; and payers are weary of the intensive effort to design and administer increasingly complex prior authorization systems to balance value and appropriate use of these treatments. These issues highlight an opportunity to collectively reimagine utilization management as a transparent and collaborative system. This would benefit the entire healthcare ecosystem, especially in light of the shift to value-based payment. This article describes the efforts and vision of the multistakeholder Prior Authorization Learning Collaborative of the Value in Healthcare Initiative, a partnership between the American Heart Association and the Robert J. Margolis, MD, Center for Health Policy at Duke University. We outline how healthcare organizations can take greater utilization management responsibility under value-based contracting, especially under different state policies and local contexts. Even with reduced payer-mandated prior authorization in these arrangements, payers and healthcare organizations will have a continued shared need for utilization management. We present options for streamlining these programs, such as gold carding and electronic and automated prior authorization processes. Throughout the article, we weave in examples from cardiovascular care when possible. Although reimagining prior authorization requires collective action by all stakeholders, it may significantly reduce administrative burden for clinicians and payers while improving outcomes for patients.

Value in Healthcare Initiative: Summary and Key Recommendations.

In spring 2018, the American Heart Association convened the Value in Healthcare Summit to begin an important conversation about the challenges patients with cardiovascular disease face in accessing and deriving quality and value from the healthcare system. Following the summit and recognizing the collective momentum it created, the American Heart Association, in collaboration with the Robert J. Margolis Center for Health Policy at Duke University, launched the Value in Healthcare Initiative-Transforming Cardiovascular Care. Four areas of focus were identified, and learning collaboratives were established and proceeded to conduct concrete, actionable problem solving in 4 high-impact areas in cardiovascular care: Value-Based Models, Partnering with Regulators, Predict and Prevent, and Prior Authorization. The deliverables from these groups are being disseminated in 4 stand-alone articles, and their publication will initiate further work to test and evaluate each of these promising areas of reform. This article provides an overview of the initiative's findings and highlights key cross-cutting themes for consideration as the initiative moves forward.

Heart Failure Site-Based Research in the United States: Results of the Heart Failure Society of America Research Network Survey.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine clinician and scientist involvement in heart failure (HF) clinical research and to describe the challenges of conducting clinical trials in the United States. BACKGROUND: Improvements in the current capability, potential, and deficiencies of the HF clinical research infrastructure in the United States are needed in order to enhance efficiency and impact. METHODS: The Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) distributed an electronic survey regarding HF clinical trial activity for the purpose of understanding the barriers that exist to conducting high-quality HF clinical research. RESULTS: Overall, 1,794 HFSA members were queried, and 434 members (24%) completed surveys, whereas a total of 7,589 individuals with interest in HF were queried, and 615 completed surveys. Of the respondents, 410 (67%) were actively engaged in HF research and 120 (20%) were interested in research. Most respondents, 270, were physicians (44%); 311 of the total (76% of the total and 80% of physicians) practiced in academic institutions; 333 respondents (81%) had served as principal investigators and 73 (18%) as site coordinators. Respondents active in clinical research usually participated in 1 to 5 trials and enrolled 1 to 20 patients annually. Institutional review board (IRB) approval typically required 3 months, and contract completion required 3 to 6 months per site. The greatest barriers to research were insufficient site budgets, delay in contracting, inability to find participants meeting trial entry criteria, and unavailability of qualified study coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: Many U.S. clinical research sites are constrained by budgetary, staffing, and contractual issues. The HFSA Research Network seeks to unify interested sites and deconstruct barriers to permit high-value HF research.