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.

The role of comorbidities, medications, and social determinants of health in understanding urban-rural outcome differences among patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: There is now a 20% disparity in all-cause, excess deaths between urban and rural areas, much of which is driven by disparities in cardiovascular death. We sought to explain the sources of these disparities for Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Using a sample of Medicare Parts A, B, and D, we created a cohort of 389,528 fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 heart failure hospitalization from 2008 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after discharge; 1-year mortality, readmissions, and return emergency room (ER) admissions were secondary outcomes. We used hierarchical, logistic regression modeling to determine the contribution of comorbidities, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and social determinants of health (SDOH) to outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality rates after hospital discharge were 6.3% in rural areas compared to 5.7% in urban regions (P < .001); after adjusting for patient health and GDMT receipt, the 30-day mortality odds ratio for rural residence was 1.201 (95% CI 1.164-1.239). Adding the SDOH measure reduced the odds ratio somewhat (1.140, 95% CI 1.103-1.178) but a gap remained. Readmission rates in rural areas were consistently lower for all model specifications, while ER admissions were consistently higher. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFrEF, living in a rural area is associated with an increased risk of death and return ER visits within 30 days of discharge from HF hospitalization. Differences in SDOH appear to partially explain mortality differences but the remaining gap may be the consequence of rural-urban differences in HF treatment.

Comparative Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Versus Oral Anticoagulation by Sex.

BACKGROUND: The comparative real-world outcomes of older patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with anticoagulation compared with left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) may be different from those in clinical trials because of differences in anticoagulation strategies and patient demographics, including a greater proportion of women. We sought to compare real-world outcomes between older patients with AF treated with anticoagulation and those treated with LAAO by sex. METHODS: Using Medicare claims data from 2015 to 2019, we identified LAAO-eligible beneficiaries and divided them into sex subgroups. Patients receiving LAAO were matched 1:1 to those receiving anticoagulation alone through propensity score matching. The risks of mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and bleeding were compared between matched groups with adjustment for potential confounding characteristics in Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Among women, 4085 LAAO recipients were matched 1:1 to those receiving anticoagulation; among men, 5378 LAAO recipients were similarly matched. LAAO was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of mortality for women and men (hazard ratio [HR], 0.509 [95% CI, 0.447-0.580]; and HR, 0.541 [95% CI, 0.487-0.601], respectively; P<0.0001), with a similar finding for stroke or systemic embolism (HR, 0.655 [95% CI, 0.555-0.772]; and HR, 0.649 [95% CI, 0.552-0.762], respectively; P<0.0001). Bleeding risk was significantly greater in LAAO recipients early after implantation but lower after the 6-week periprocedural period for women and men (HR, 0.772 [95% CI, 0.676-0.882]; and HR, 0.881 [95% CI, 0.784-0.989], respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world population of older Medicare beneficiaries with AF, compared with anticoagulation, LAAO was associated with a reduction in the risk of death, stroke, and long-term bleeding among women and men. These findings should be incorporated into shared decision-making with patients considering strategies for reduction in AF-related stroke.

Early mortality after inpatient versus outpatient catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Rates of early mortality and complications after catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) vary across health care settings. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the rate and predictors of early mortality (within 30 days) after CA in the inpatient and outpatient settings. METHODS: Using the Medicare Fee for Service database, we analyzed 122,289 patients who underwent CA for treatment of AF between 2016 and 2019 to define 30-day mortality in both inpatients and outpatients. Odds of adjusted mortality were assessed with several methods, including inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Mean age was 71.9 ± 6.7 years, 44% were women, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.2 ± 1.7. Overall, 82% underwent AF ablation as an outpatient. Mortality rate 30 days after CA was 0.6%, with inpatients accounting for 71.5% of deaths (P <.001). Early mortality rates were 0.2% for outpatient procedures and 2.4% for inpatient procedures. The prevalence of comorbidities was significantly higher in patients with early mortality. Patients with early mortality had significantly higher rates of postprocedural complications. After adjustment, inpatient ablation was significantly associated with early mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.87-5.08; P <.001). Hospitals with high overall ablation volume had 31% lower odds of early mortality (highest vs lowest tertile: aOR 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.86; P <.001). CONCLUSION: AF ablation conducted in the inpatient setting is associated with a higher rate of early mortality compared with outpatient AF ablation. Comorbidities are associated with enhanced risk of early mortality. High overall ablation volume is associated with a lower risk of early mortality.

Coverage with evidence development: where are we now?

OBJECTIVES: CMS' coverage with evidence development (CED) policy allows Medicare beneficiaries to access promising therapies and services while additional data are collected. CED program characteristics are mostly unreported, and qualities associated with retirement of CED data collection requirements are unknown. We aimed to review and systematically describe CED program history and components and report programmatic elements correlated with retirement of CED data collection requirements, while identifying areas for policy improvement. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: We extracted CED information from the CMS website, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, internet searches, and communication with CMS. RESULTS: There were 27 CED determinations from 2005 to 2022 in 8 therapeutic areas, with the most for cardiovascular diseases (8/27; 30%). Duration of CED programs (range, 1-16 years) and the number of related registries and clinical trials (range, 0-34) were widely variable. Only 4 CEDs have had data collection requirements with continued National Coverage Determination (NCD); 3 relate to cardiovascular therapies, and all have some public availability of findings resulting from CED-related data collection mechanisms. There were 2 instances of NCD revocation and deferral to local coverage decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the CED program through improving program predictability and transparency with regard to outstanding questions, roles of relevant stakeholders, and requirements for reporting and reevaluation would strengthen the program's effectiveness. Ultimately, these improvements would provide incentives for stakeholder participation in data collection to achieve the goal of increasing access to beneficial therapies and improving clinical outcomes.

Longitudinal Outcomes of Subcutaneous or Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators in Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous (S-) implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is an alternative to the transvenous (TV-) ICD that is increasingly implanted in younger patients; data on the safety and effectiveness of the S-ICD in older patients are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among older patients who received an S- or TV-ICD. METHODS: The authors compared S-ICD and single-chamber TV-ICD implants in Fee-For-Service Medicare beneficiaries using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Outcomes were ascertained from Medicare claims data. Cox regression or competing-risk models (with TV-ICD as reference) with overlap weights were used to compare death and nonfatal outcomes (device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular admission), respectively. Recurrent all-cause readmissions were compared using Anderson-Gill models. RESULTS: A total of 16,063 patients were studied (age 72.6 ± 5.9 years, 28.4% women, ejection fraction 28.3 ± 8.9%). Compared with TV-ICD patients (n = 15,072), S-ICD patients (n = 991, 6.2% overall) were more often Black, younger, and dialysis dependent and less likely to have history of atrial fibrillation or flutter. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences between device type and risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.020; 95% CI: 0.819-1.270), device reoperation (subdistribution [s] HR: 0.976; 95% CI: 0.645-1.479), device removal for infection (sHR: 0.614; 95% CI: 0.138-2.736), device reoperation without infection (sHR: 0.975; 95% CI: 0.632-1.506), cardiovascular readmission (sHR: 1.087; 95% CI: 0.912-1.295), or recurrent all-cause readmission (HR: 1.072; 95% CI: 0.990-1.161). CONCLUSIONS: In a large representative national cohort of older patients undergoing ICD implantation, risk of death, device reoperation, device removal for infection, device reoperation without infection, and cardiovascular and all-cause readmission were similar among S- and TV-ICD recipients.

Complications and Mortality Following CRT-D Versus ICD Implants in Older Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the comparative effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) over implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) alone in older Medicare patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). BACKGROUND: Despite growing numbers of older patients with HFrEF, the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in this group are largely unknown. METHODS: A cohort of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with HFrEF and enrolled in Medicare Part D who underwent CRT-D or ICD implantation from January 2008 to August 2015 was identified. Beneficiaries were divided by age (65-74, 75-84, and 85+ years), and outcomes were compared between the CRT-D and ICD groups after inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Compared with the ICD group, the CRT-D group was older and more likely to be White, be female, and have left bundle branch block. After weighting, overall complications were high across age and device groups (14%-20%). The 1-year mortality was high across all groups. In the 2 oldest age strata, the hazard of death was lower in the CRT-D group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.95 and HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.72-0.90, respectively; P < 0.001); the hazard of heart failure hospitalization was lower for CRT-D vs ICD in the 85+ years age group (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74-0.92; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In older Medicare beneficiaries undergoing ICD with or without CRT, complications and 1-year mortality were high. Compared with ICD alone, CRT-D was associated with a lower hazard of mortality in patients ≥74 years of age and lower hazard of HF hospitalization in those ≥85 years of age. These findings support the use of CRT in eligible older patients undergoing ICD implantation.

Arrhythmias in Female Patients: Incidence, Presentation and Management.

There is a growing appreciation for differences in epidemiology, treatment, and outcomes of cardiovascular conditions by sex. Historically, cardiovascular clinical trials have under-represented females, but findings have nonetheless been applied to clinical care in a sex-agnostic manner. Thus, much of the collective knowledge about sex-specific cardiovascular outcomes result from post hoc and secondary analyses. In some cases, these investigations have revealed important sex-based differences with implications for optimizing care for female patients with arrhythmias. This review explores the available evidence related to cardiac arrhythmia care among females, with emphasis on areas in which important sex differences are known or suggested. Considerations related to improving female enrollment in clinical trials as a way to establish more robust clinical evidence for the treatment of females are discussed. Areas of remaining evidence gaps are provided, and recommendations for areas of future research and specific action items are suggested. The overarching goal is to improve appreciation for sex-based differences in cardiac arrhythmia care as 1 component of a comprehensive plan to optimize arrhythmia care for all patients.

Funding of Studies Supporting IA Guideline Recommendations in Cardiovascular Medicine-A Systematic Review.

Each guideline recommendation from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology includes an indication of the level of supporting evidence and the associated strength of recommendation with "IA" recommendations representing those with the highest quality supporting evidence and the least amount of uncertainty for benefit. In this analysis, study type and funding sources were systematically tabulated across these IA guideline recommendations over the past 5 years. Nearly half of studies supporting IA guideline recommendations were randomized controlled trials (45%). Overall, about one third of studies supporting IA recommendations were publicly funded (34.9%) with slightly more funded through industry sources (43.5%). Funding sources varied based on the type of intervention being studied with randomized controlled trials of device, diagnostic, and pharmacological interventions reflecting predominantly industry-funded studies. Over time, studies supporting IA cardiology guideline are funded by industry about twice as often as public sources. Thus, data of adequate quality to support cardiovascular guideline recommendations come from a variety of sources.

OptiVol for Volume Assessment in Patients With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device.

OptiVol (Medtronic PLC, Minneapolis, MN) is a diagnostic feature of some cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) based on changes in thoracic impedance (TI) over time. Changes in TI can predict heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and mortality in HF populations. However, the utility of this feature is unknown in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). To determine if OptiVol and TI correlate with clinical HF events in a population of LVAD patients, hospitalization outcomes were collected retrospectively from the electronic health records at a single academic medical center in 80 LVAD patients with an OptiVol-capable CIED. Demographics, medical history, and available clinical data were reviewed and reported. The primary outcomes of interest were TI and OptiVol trends before and after hospitalization, and association of trends before and after these events was evaluated. Most patients had a HeartMate II LVAD and most CIEDs were defibrillators, and 23 (29%) had at least one HF hospitalization during the study period. HF hospitalizations were preceded by signs of volume overload in Optivol (60%) and TI (78%) with recovery of these measures post hospitalization in 33% and 25% of patients, respectively. Monitoring of TI and OptiVol may be one effective component of HF management in LVAD patients as part of a comprehensive program.

Outcomes Associated With Extraction Versus Capping and Abandoning Pacing and Defibrillator Leads.

BACKGROUND: Lead management is an increasingly important aspect of care in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices; however, relatively little is known about long-term outcomes after capping and abandoning leads. METHODS: Using the 5% Medicare sample, we identified patients with de novo cardiac implantable electronic device implantations between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, and with a subsequent lead addition or extraction ≥12 months after the de novo implantation. Patients who underwent extraction for infection were excluded. Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, device-related infection, device revision, and lead extraction at 1 and 5 years for the extraction versus the cap and abandon group. RESULTS: Among 6859 patients, 1113 (16.2%) underwent extraction, whereas 5746 (83.8%) underwent capping and abandonment. Extraction patients tended to be younger (median, 78 versus 79 years; P<0.0001), were less likely to be male (65% versus 68%; P=0.05), and had shorter lead dwell time (median, 3.0 versus 4.0 years; P<0.0001) and fewer comorbidities. Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (25th, 75th percentiles, 1.0, 4.3 years), the overall 1-year and 5-year cumulative incidence of mortality was 13.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7-14.4) and 54.3% (95% CI, 52.8-55.8), respectively. Extraction was associated with a lower risk of device infection at 5 years relative to capping (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P=0.027). There was no association between extraction and mortality, lead revision, or lead extraction at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Elective lead extraction for noninfectious indications had similar long-term survival to that for capping and abandoning leads in a Medicare population. However, extraction was associated with lower risk of device infections at 5 years.

Comparative Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Women.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention enrolled a limited number of women. We sought to examine clinical practice data to compare survival rates among women with heart failure with or without a primary prevention ICD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked data from 264 US hospitals included in the Get With The Guidelines for Heart Failure registry with data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. From these sources, we propensity score matched 430 women with heart failure who received a primary prevention ICD to 430 women who did not; we further adjusted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Median follow-up was 3.4 and 3.0 years. For comparison, we matched 859 men receiving an ICD with 859 who did not; median follow-up was 3.9 versus 2.9 years. In the matched cohorts, an ICD was associated with similarly better survival in women (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.92; P=0.003) and men (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87 P<0.001). There was no interaction between sex and presence of an ICD with respect to survival (P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, a primary prevention ICD was associated with a significant survival advantage among women and among men. These findings support guideline-directed use of primary prevention ICDs in eligible patients.

Optimal management of Riata leads with no known electrical abnormalities or externalization: a decision analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Riata and Riata ST implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) leads (St. Jude Medical, Sylmar, CA, USA) can develop conductor cable externalization and/or electrical failure. Optimal management of these leads remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov model compared 4 lead management strategies: (1) routine device interrogation for electrical failure, (2) systematic yearly fluoroscopic screening and routine device interrogation, (3) implantation of new ICD lead with capping of the in situ lead, and (4) implantation of new ICD lead with extraction of the in situ lead. The base case was a 64-year-old primary prevention ICD patient. Modeling demonstrated average life expectancies as follows: capping with new lead implanted at 134.5 months, extraction with new lead implanted at 134.0 months, fluoroscopy with routine interrogation at 133.9 months, and routine interrogation at 133.5 months. One-way sensitivity analyses identified capping as the preferred strategy with only one parameter having a threshold value: when risk of nonarrhythmic death associated with lead abandonment is greater than 0.05% per year, lead extraction is preferred over capping. A second-order Monte Carlo simulation (n = 10,000), as a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, found that lead revision was favored with 100% certainty (extraction 76% and capping 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall there were minimal differences in survival with monitoring versus active lead management approaches. There is no evidence to support fluoroscopic screening for externalization of Riata or Riata ST leads.