Assess and validate predictive performance of models for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients: A retrospective cohort study in the Netherlands comparing the value of registry data with high-granular electronic health records.

PURPOSE: To assess, validate and compare the predictive performance of models for in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) over two different waves of infections. Our models were built with high-granular Electronic Health Records (EHR) data versus less-granular registry data. METHODS: Observational study of all COVID-19 patients admitted to 19 Dutch ICUs participating in both the national quality registry National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) and the EHR-based Dutch Data Warehouse (hereafter EHR). Multiple models were developed on data from the first 24 h of ICU admissions from February to June 2020 (first COVID-19 wave) and validated on prospective patients admitted to the same ICUs between July and December 2020 (second COVID-19 wave). We assessed model discrimination, calibration, and the degree of relatedness between development and validation population. Coefficients were used to identify relevant risk factors. RESULTS: A total of 1533 patients from the EHR and 1563 from the registry were included. With high granular EHR data, the average AUROC was 0.69 (standard deviation of 0.05) for the internal validation, and the AUROC was 0.75 for the temporal validation. The registry model achieved an average AUROC of 0.76 (standard deviation of 0.05) in the internal validation and 0.77 in the temporal validation. In the EHR data, age, and respiratory-system related variables were the most important risk factors identified. In the NICE registry data, age and chronic respiratory insufficiency were the most important risk factors. CONCLUSION: In our study, prognostic models built on less-granular but readily-available registry data had similar performance to models built on high-granular EHR data and showed similar transportability to a prospective COVID-19 population. Future research is needed to verify whether this finding can be confirmed for upcoming waves.

Cost Analysis From a Randomized Comparison of Immediate Versus Delayed Angiography After Cardiac Arrest.

Background In patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation, immediate coronary angiography did not improve clinical outcomes when compared with delayed angiography in the COACT (Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest) trial. Whether 1 of the 2 strategies has benefits in terms of health care resource use and costs is currently unknown. We assess the health care resource use and costs in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods and Results A total of 538 patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of either immediate or delayed coronary angiography. Detailed health care resource use and cost-prices were collected from the initial hospital episode. A generalized linear model and a gamma distribution were performed. Generic quality of life was measured with the RAND-36 and collected at 12-month follow-up. Overall total mean costs were similar between both groups (EUR 33 575±19 612 versus EUR 33 880±21 044; P=0.86). Generalized linear model: (ß, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.894-1.099; P=0.86). Mean procedural costs (coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft) were higher in the immediate angiography group (EUR 4384±3447 versus EUR 3028±4220; P<0.001). Costs concerning intensive care unit and ward stay did not show any significant difference. The RAND-36 questionnaire did not differ between both groups. Conclusions The mean total costs between patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest randomly assigned to an immediate angiography or a delayed invasive strategy were similar during the initial hospital stay. With respect to the higher invasive procedure costs in the immediate group, a strategy awaiting neurological recovery followed by coronary angiography and planned revascularization may be considered. Registration URL: https://trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL4857.

Deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients with predicted low cardiovascular disease risk in general practice - the ECSTATIC study: a cluster randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiovascular medication for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is potentially inappropriate when potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. It is unknown whether deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients without a strict indication for such medication is safe and cost-effective in general practice. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we recruited 46 general practices in the Netherlands. Patients aged 40-70 years who were using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs without CVD and with low risk of future CVD were followed for 2 years. The intervention was an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication. The primary outcome was the difference in the increase in predicted (10-year) CVD risk in the per-protocol (PP) population with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5 percentage points. An economic evaluation was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. We used multilevel (generalised) linear regression with multiple imputation of missing data. RESULTS: Of 1067 participants recruited between 7 November 2012 and 18 February 2014, 72% were female. Overall, their mean age was 55 years and their mean predicted CVD risk at baseline was 5%. Of 492 participants in the ITT intervention group, 319 (65%) quit the medication (PP intervention group); 135 (27%) of those participants were still not taking medication after 2 years. The predicted CVD risk increased by 2.0 percentage points in the PP intervention group compared to 1.9 percentage points in the usual care group. The difference of 0.1 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.6) fell within the non-inferiority margin. After 2 years, compared to the usual care group, for the PP intervention group, systolic blood pressure was 6 mmHg higher, diastolic blood pressure was 4 mmHg higher and total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were both 7 mg/dl higher (all P < 0.05). Cost and quality-adjusted life years did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ECSTATIC study show that an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication in low-CVD-risk patients is safe in the short term when blood pressure and cholesterol levels are monitored after stopping. An attempt to deprescribe medication can be considered, taking patient preferences into consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with Dutch trial register on 20 June 2012 ( NTR3493 ).

Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Preventive Cardiovascular Medication: Barriers and Enablers for Patients and General Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The use of preventive cardiovascular medication by patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is potentially inappropriate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and enablers of deprescribing potentially inappropriate preventive cardiovascular medication experienced by patients and general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A total of 10 GPs participating in the ECSTATIC trial (Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care) audiotaped deprescribing consultations with low-CVD-risk patients. After initial conventional content analysis, 2 researchers separately coded all barriers to and enablers of deprescribing medication using framework analysis. We performed a within-case and cross-case analysis to explore barriers and enablers among both patients and GPs. RESULTS: Patients (n = 49) and GPs (n = 10) expressed barriers and enablers with regard to the appropriateness of the medication and the deprescribing process. A family history for CVD was identified as a barrier to deprescribing medication for both patients and GPs. Patients feared possible consequences of deprescribing and were influenced by the opinion of their GP. Additionally, a presumed disapproving opinion from specialists influenced the GPs' willingness to deprescribe medication. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appreciated discussing their doubts regarding deprescribing potentially inappropriate preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, they acknowledged their GP's expertise and took their opinion toward deprescribing into consideration. The GPs' decisions to deprescribe were influenced by the low CVD risk of the patients, additional risk factors, and the alleged specialist's opinion toward deprescribing. We recommend deprescribing consultations to be patient centered, with GPs addressing relevant themes and probable consequences of deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication.

[The guideline 'Cardiovascular risk management' is too simplified for elderly care]. / Richtlijn 'Cardiovasculair risicomanagement' bij ouderen ongenuanceerd.

In the 2011 revision of the multidisciplinary guideline 'Cardiovascular Risk Management', the new age category '70-year olds' was added to the risk chart. Virtually all people aged 70 years and over have a 10-year risk of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity that exceeds 20%, and are therefore eligible for preventive medication when lifestyle changes fail. In view of the attenuating predictive value of classic risk factors with age, the authors of this commentary discuss the lack of a more age-differentiated approach for older persons. They underline the importance of including differences in the levels of vulnerability in older patients when making medication decisions. The risk of undue medicalisation of a large segment of the population is discussed. Alternative approaches are conveyed: the use of age-dependent thresholds for different risk categories, the use of relative risk charts, and the search for better risk markers in (very) old age.

Clinical relevance of a raised plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide level in a population-based cohort of nonagenarians.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) remains a specific marker of cardiac illness in very old age and can be used to identify very elderly people at high risk for death independent of the presence of known cardiac diagnoses. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, population-based follow-up study within the Leiden 85-Plus Study of a 2-year birth cohort (1912-1914). SETTING: General population, municipality of Leiden, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-four participants were followed up from age 90 onward (median follow-up 42.3 months, interquartile range 20.2-50.2 months). MEASUREMENTS: Plasma NT-proBNP level, indicators of general health and functioning, and specific cardiac diagnoses at age 90 and mortality from age 90 onward. RESULTS: Plasma levels of NT-proBNP were not correlated with indicators of poor health or poor functioning, but the level of NT-proBNP increased significantly with increasing numbers of cardiac diagnoses (P<.001). High NT-proBNP was associated with overall mortality in participants with (hazard ratio (HR)=2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.5-5.2) and without (HR=3.5, 95% CI=1.6-7.5) specific cardiac diagnoses. This was also found for cardiovascular mortality risks (with specific cardiac diagnoses HR=4.1, 95% CI=1.5-11 vs without HR=5.6, 95% CI=1.0-30) and noncardiovascular mortality risks (with specific cardiac diagnoses HR=1.9, 95% CI=0.84-4.5 vs without HR=3.4, 95% CI=1.3-8.6). CONCLUSION: Plasma NT-proBNP is a disease-specific marker of cardiac illness in nonagenarians and can possibly be used as a predictor of mortality in elderly people with and without specific cardiac diagnoses.