Video-based AI for beat-to-beat assessment of cardiac function.

Accurate assessment of cardiac function is crucial for the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease1, screening for cardiotoxicity2 and decisions regarding the clinical management of patients with a critical illness3. However, human assessment of cardiac function focuses on a limited sampling of cardiac cycles and has considerable inter-observer variability despite years of training4,5. Here, to overcome this challenge, we present a video-based deep learning algorithm-EchoNet-Dynamic-that surpasses the performance of human experts in the critical tasks of segmenting the left ventricle, estimating ejection fraction and assessing cardiomyopathy. Trained on echocardiogram videos, our model accurately segments the left ventricle with a Dice similarity coefficient of 0.92, predicts ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 4.1% and reliably classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (area under the curve of 0.97). In an external dataset from another healthcare system, EchoNet-Dynamic predicts the ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 6.0% and classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with an area under the curve of 0.96. Prospective evaluation with repeated human measurements confirms that the model has variance that is comparable to or less than that of human experts. By leveraging information across multiple cardiac cycles, our model can rapidly identify subtle changes in ejection fraction, is more reproducible than human evaluation and lays the foundation for precise diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in real time. As a resource to promote further innovation, we also make publicly available a large dataset of 10,030 annotated echocardiogram videos.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Medical Therapy Before, During and After Hospitalization in Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure and Diabetes: Get With The Guidelines - Heart Failure Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) are at risk for worsening clinical status. Little is known about the frequency of therapeutic changes during hospitalization. We characterized the use of medical therapies before, during and after hospitalization in patients with HF and DM. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries in Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) hospitalized between July 2014 and September 2019 with Part D prescription coverage. We evaluated trends in the use of 7 classes of antihyperglycemic therapies (metformin, sulfonylureas, GLP-1RA, SGLT2-inhibitors, DPP-4 inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, and insulins) and 4 classes of HF therapies (evidence-based ß-blockers, ACEi or ARB, MRA, and ARNI). Medication fills were assessed at 6 and 3 months before hospitalization, at hospital discharge and at 3 months post-discharge. RESULTS: Among 35,165 Medicare beneficiaries, the median age was 77 years, 54% were women, and 76% were white; 11,660 (33%) had HFrEF (LVEF ≤ 40%), 3700 (11%) had HFmrEF (LVEF 41%-49%), and 19,805 (56%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 50%). Overall, insulin was the most commonly prescribed antihyperglycemic after HF hospitalization (n = 12,919, 37%), followed by metformin (n = 7460, 21%) and sulfonylureas (n = 7030, 20%). GLP-1RA (n = 700, 2.0%) and SGLT2i (n = 287, 1.0%) use was low and did not improve over time. In patients with HFrEF, evidence-based beta-blocker, RASi, MRA, and ARNI fills during the 6 months preceding HF hospitalization were 63%, 62%, 19%, and 4%, respectively. Fills initially declined prior to hospitalization, but then rose from 3 months before hospitalization to discharge (beta-blocker: 56%-82%; RASi: 51%-57%, MRA: 15%-28%, ARNI: 3%-6%, triple therapy: 8%-20%; P < 0.01 for all). Prescription rates 3 months after hospitalization were similar to those at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital optimization of medical therapy in patients with HF and DM is common in participating hospitals of a large US quality improvement registry.

Assessing the Impact of the American Heart Association's Research Portfolio: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

A task force composed of American Heart Association (AHA) Research Committee members established processes to measure the performance of the AHA's research portfolio and evaluated key outcomes that are fundamental to the overall success of the program. This report reviews progress that the AHA research program has had in achieving its goals relevant to the research programs in the AHA's research portfolio from 2008 to 2017. Comprehensive performance metrics were identified to assess the impact of AHA funding on researchers' career progress and research outcomes. Metrics included bibliometric analysis (ie, tracking of publications and their impact) and career development measures (ie, subsequent grant funding, intellectual property, faculty appointment/promotion, or industry position). Publication rates ranged from ≈0.5 to 4 publications per year, with a strong correlation between number of publications per year and later career stage. The Field-Weighted Citation Index, a metric of bibliometric impact, was between 1.5 and 3.0 for all programs, indicating that AHA awardee publications had a higher citation impact compared with similar publications. To gain insight into the career progression of AHA awardees, a 2-year postaward survey was distributed. Of the Postdoctoral Fellowship recipient respondents, 72% obtained academic research positions, with the remaining working in industry or government research settings; 72% of those in academic positions obtained additional funding. Among respondents who were Beginning Grant-in-Aid and Scientist Development Grant awardees, 45% received academic promotions and 83% obtained additional funding. Measuring performance of the AHA's research portfolio is critical to ensure that its strategic goals are met and to show the AHA's commitment to high-quality, impactful research.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Pharmacist- and Nurse-Led Medical Optimization in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional approaches to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) management often lead to delayed initiation and titration of therapies in patients with heart failure. This study sought to characterize alternative models of care involving nonphysician provider-led GDMT interventions and their associations with therapy use and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing nonphysician provider-led GDMT initiation and/or uptitration interventions vs usual physician care (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022334661). We queried PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trial Registry Platform for peer-reviewed studies from database inception to July 31, 2022. In the meta-analysis, we used RCT data only and leveraged random-effects models to estimate pooled outcomes. Primary outcomes were GDMT initiation and titration to target dosages by therapeutic class. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations. RESULTS: We reviewed 33 studies, of which 17 (52%) were randomized controlled trials with median follow-ups of 6 months; 14 (82%) trials evaluated nurse interventions, and the remainder assessed pharmacists' interventions. The primary analysis pooled data from 16 RCTs, which enrolled 5268 patients. Pooled risk ratios (RR) for renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) and beta-blocker initiation were 2.09 (95% CI 1.05-4.16; I2 = 68%) and 1.91 (95% CI1.35-2.70; I2 = 37%), respectively. Outcomes were similar for uptitration of RASI (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.24-3.20; I2 = 77%) and beta-blocker (RR 2.22, 95% CI 1.29-3.83; I2 = 66%). No association was found with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist initiation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.47-2.19). There were lower rates of mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67-1.04; I2 = 12%) and hospitalization due to HF (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63-1.01; I2 = 25%) across intervention arms, but these differences were small and not statistically significant. Prediction intervals were wide due to moderate-to-high heterogeneity across trial populations and interventions. Subgroup analyses by provider type did not show significant effect modification. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist- and nurse-led interventions for GDMT initiation and/or uptitration improved guideline concordance. Further research evaluating newer therapies and titration strategies integrated with pharmacist- and/or nurse-based care may be valuable.

Achievement and quality measure attainment in patients hospitalized with atrial fibrillation: Results from The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) registry.

BACKGROUND: The Get With The Guidelines - Atrial Fibrillation (GWTG-AFIB) Registry uses achievement and quality measures to improve the care of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to evaluate overall and site-level variation in attainment of these measures among sites participating in the GWTG-AFIB Registry. METHODS: From the GWTG-AFIB registry, we included patients with AF admitted between 1/3/2013 and 6/30/2019. We described patient-level attainment and variation in attainment across sites of 6 achievement measures with 1) defect-free scores (percent of patients with all eligible measures attained), and 2) composite opportunity scores (percent of all eligible patient measures attained). We also described attainment of 11 quality measures at the patient-level. RESULTS: Among 80,951 patients hospitalized for AF (age 70±13 years, 47.0% female; CHA2DS2-VASc 3.6±1.8) at 132 sites. Site-level defect-free scores ranged from 4.7% to 85.8% (25th, 50th, 75th percentile: 32.7%, 52.1%, 64.4%). Composite opportunity scores ranged from 39.4% to 97.5% (25th, 50th, 75th: 68.1%, 80.3%, 87.1%). Attainment was notably low for the following quality measures: 1) aldosterone antagonist prescription when ejection fraction ≤35% (29% of those eligible); and 2) avoidance of antiplatelet therapy with OAC in patients without coronary/peripheral artery disease (81% of those eligible). CONCLUSIONS: Despite high overall attainment of care measures across GWTG-AFIB registry sites, large site variation was present with meaningful opportunities to improve AF care beyond OAC prescription, including but not limited to prescription of aldosterone antagonists in those with AF and systolic dysfunction and avoidance of non-indicated adjunctive antiplatelet therapy.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Projected Clinical Benefits of Implementation of SGLT-2 Inhibitors Among Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors form the latest pillar in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and appear to be effective across a range of patient profiles. There is increasing interest in initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors during hospitalization, yet little is known about the putative benefits of this implementation strategy. METHODS: We evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF (≤ 40%) hospitalized at 228 sites in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry in 2016 who had linked claims data for ≥ 1 year postdischarge. We identified those eligible for dapagliflozin under the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration label (excluding estimated glomerular filtration rates < 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2, dialysis and type 1 diabetes). We evaluated 1-year outcomes overall and among key subgroups (age ≥ 75 years, gender, race, hospital region, kidney function, diabetes status, triple therapy). We then projected the potential benefits of implementation of dapagliflozin based on the risk reductions observed in the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial. RESULTS: Among 7523 patients hospitalized for HFrEF, 6576 (87%) would be candidates for dapagliflozin (mean age 79 ± 8 years, 39% women, 11% Black). Among eligible candidates, discharge use of ß-blockers, ACEi/ARB, MRA, ARNI, and triple therapy (ACEi/ARB/ARNI+ß-blocker+MRA) was recorded in 88%, 64%, 29%, 3%, and 20%, respectively. Among treatment-eligible patients, the 1-year incidence (95% CI) of mortality was 37% (36-38%) and of HF readmission was 33% (32-34%), and each exceeded 25% across all key subgroups. Among 1333 beneficiaries eligible for dapagliflozin who were already on triple therapy, the 1-year incidence of mortality was 26% (24%-29%) and the 1-year readmission due to HF was 30% (27%-32%). Applying the relative risk reductions observed in DAPA-HF, absolute risk reductions with complete implementation of dapagliflozin among treatment-eligible Medicare beneficiaries are projected to be 5% (1%-9%) for mortality and 9% (5%-12%) for HF readmission by 1 year. The projected number of Medicare beneficiaries who would need to be treated for 1 year to prevent 1 death is 19 (11-114), and 12 (8-21) would need to be treated to prevent 1 readmission due to HF. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF who are eligible for dapagliflozin after hospitalization due to HF, including those well-treated with other disease-modifying therapies, face high risks of mortality and HF readmission by 1 year. If the benefits of reductions in death and hospitalizations due to HF observed in clinical trials can be fully realized, the absolute benefits of implementation of SGLT-2 inhibitors among treatment-eligible candidates are anticipated to be substantial in this high-risk postdischarge setting.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (AHA/ACC/HFSA) Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure replaces the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure and the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure. The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews and other evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies published through September 2021 were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments that have high-quality published economic analyses.

Assessment of coding-based frailty algorithms for long-term outcome prediction among older people in community settings: a cohort study from the Shizuoka Kokuho Database.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of Electronic Frailty Index (eFI) and Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) algorithms to Japanese administrative claims data and to evaluate their association with long-term outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study using a regional government administrative healthcare and long-term care (LTC) claims database in Japan 2014-18. PARTICIPANTS: Plan enrollees aged ≥50 years. METHODS: We applied the two algorithms to the cohort and assessed the scores' distributions alongside enrollees' 4-year mortality and initiation of government-supported LTC. Using Cox regression and Fine-Gray models, we evaluated the association between frailty scores and outcomes as well as the models' discriminatory ability. RESULTS: Among 827,744 enrollees, 42.8% were categorised by eFI as fit, 31.2% mild, 17.5% moderate and 8.5% severe. For HFRS, 73.0% were low, 24.3% intermediate and 2.7% high risk; 35 of 36 predictors for eFI, and 92 of 109 codes originally used for HFRS were available in the Japanese system. Relative to the lowest frailty group, the highest frailty group had hazard ratios [95% confidence interval (CI)] of 2.09 (1.98-2.21) for mortality and 2.45 (2.28-2.63) for LTC for eFI; those for HFRS were 3.79 (3.56-4.03) and 3.31 (2.87-3.82), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curves for the unadjusted model at 48 months was 0.68 for death and 0.68 for LTC for eFI, and 0.73 and 0.70, respectively, for HFRS. CONCLUSIONS: The frailty algorithms were applicable to the Japanese system and could contribute to the identifications of enrollees at risk of long-term mortality or LTC use.

How successful was the use of a community of practice for the implementation of evidence-based practices for heart failure within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs: Insights from a formative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Communities of Practice (CoPs) are a promising approach to facilitate the implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) to improve care for chronic conditions like heart failure (HF). CoPs involve a complex process of acquiring and converting both explicit and tacit knowledge into clinical activities. This study describes the conceptualization, creation, capacity-building and dissemination of a CoP sustained over 9 years, and evaluates its value and impact on EBP. METHODS: In July 2006, a CoP called the Heart Failure Provider Network (HF Network) was established within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with the overarching goal of improving the quality of care for HF patients. We assessed (formative) the HF Network in terms of its various activities (inputs) and proximal impacts (mediators) at the individual level, and its distal impacts (outcomes) at the site level including implementation of new/improved EBPs at the systemwide level. RESULTS: The HF Network membership grew steadily over the 9 years. The CoP has involved a total of 1341 multidisciplinary and multilevel members at all 144 VA Health Care Systems (sites). Most members were practising clinicians (n = 891, 66.4%), followed by administrators (n = 342, 25.5%), researchers (n = 70, 5.2%) and others (n = 38, 2.8%). Participation was assessed to be "active" for 70.6% versus "passive" for 29.4% of members. The distribution of active members (clinicians 64.7%, administrators 21.6%) was similar to the distribution of overall membership. CONCLUSIONS: Survey respondents perceived the HF Network as useful in terms of its varied activities and resources relevant for patient care. Strong evidence shows that these members, particularly those who considered themselves influential in improving quality of care, noted multiple benefits of membership, which included confirmation of their own clinical practices, evidence-based changes to their practice and help in understanding facilitators and barriers in setting up or running HF clinics and other programmes. Such CoPs have strong impacts on the quality of care being delivered for both mandated and non-mandated initiatives.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis from the veteran's affairs healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system. METHODS: We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values. RESULTS: Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.

Building a Heart Failure Clinic: A Practical Guide from the Heart Failure Society of America.

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of mortality and morbidity and a primary driver of health care resource use in the United States. As such, there continues to be much interest in the development and refinement of HF clinics that manage patients with HF in a guideline-directed, technology-enabled, and coordinated approach. Optimization of resource use and maintenance of collaboration with other providers are also important themes when considering implementation of HF clinics. Through this document, the Heart Failure Society of America aims to provide a contemporary, practical guide to creating and sustaining a HF clinic. The guide discusses (1) patient care considerations for delivering guideline-directed and patient-centered care, and (2) operational considerations including development of a HF clinic business plan, setting goals, leadership support, triggers for patient referral and patient follow-up, patient population served, optimal clinic staffing models, relationships with subspecialists, and continuous quality improvement. This document was developed to empower providers and clinicians who wish to build and sustain community-based, successful HF clinics.

Practice Variation in Anticoagulation Prescription and Outcomes After Device-Detected Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased risk of stroke; however, there are no clearly defined thresholds of AF burden at which to initiate oral anticoagulation (OAC). We sought to describe OAC prescription practice variation in response to new device-detected AF and the association with outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Veterans Health Administration linked to remote monitoring data that included day-level AF burden. We included patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and remote monitoring from 2011 to 2014, CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2, and no prior stroke or OAC receipt in the preceding 2 years. We determined the proportion of patients prescribed OAC within 90 days after new device-detected AF across a range of AF thresholds (≥6 minutes to >24 hours) and examined site variation in OAC prescription. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regressions to determine the association of OAC prescription with stroke by device-detected AF burden. RESULTS: Among 10 212 patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, 4570 (45%), 3969 (39%), 3263 (32%), and 2469 (24%) had device-detected AF >6 minutes, >1 hour, >6 hours, and >24 hours, respectively. For device-detected AF >1 hour, 1712 patients met inclusion criteria (72±10 years; 1.5% female; CHA2DS2-VASc score 4.0±1.4; HAS-BLED score 2.6±1.1). The proportion receiving OAC varied based on device-detected AF burden (≥6 minutes: 272/2101 [13%]; >1 hour: 273/1712 [16%]; >6 hours: 263/1279 [21%]; >24 hours: 224/818 [27%]). Across 52 sites (N=1329 patients), there was substantial site-level variation in OAC prescription after device-detected AF >1 hour (median, 16%; range, 3%-67%; median odds ratio, 1.56 [95% credible interval, 1.49-1.71]). In adjusted models, OAC prescription after device-detected AF >24 hours was associated with reduced stroke risk (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.10-0.81; P=0.02), although the propensity-adjusted model was significant when AF lasted at least 6 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Among veterans with cardiac implantable electronic devices, device-detected AF is common. There is large practice variation in 90-day OAC initiation after new device-detected AF, with low rates of treatment overall, even for episodes that last >24 hours. The strongest association of OAC with reduction in stroke was observed after device-detected AF >24 hours. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these observational findings.

Discrepancy in recognition of symptom burden among patients with atrial fibrillation.

Our aim was to investigate the variability in physician recognition of atrial fibrillation (AF)-related symptoms, which greatly contributes to the management of AF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1493 newly-referredAF patients (67 ±â€¯11 y/o, 1057 men) consecutively registered in an outpatient-based Japanese multicenter database (KiCS-AF) from September 2012 to December 2016 were analyzed. Self-reportedAF symptom burden was assessed via symptom and daily activities domains within the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-life (AFEQT) questionnaire. Physician symptom under-recognition (UR) was defined as no subjective complaints recorded in the medical records despite AFEQT score of <80; and physician's apparent over-recognition (OvR) was defined as documentation of subjective complaints despite total AFEQT score of ≥80. There was poor agreement between patient-reported and physicians-estimated symptom burden (kappa 0.28, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.33). In the logistic regression analysis, age> 75 (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13-2.62), male sex (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.22-2.74), and persistent/permanent AF (OR 2.54/3.36; CI, 1.63-3.99/1.91-5.89, respectively) were predictors of UR. Conversely, heart failure (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.44-4.25) and treatment in an ablation facility (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02) were associated with greater odds of OvR in addition to age, sex, and type of AF. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance in recognition of AF symptom burden by physicians was frequent in AF patients seen in outpatient management and involved both patient- and physician-related factors.

Care Optimization Through Patient and Hospital Engagement Clinical Trial for Heart Failure: Rationale and design of CONNECT-HF.

Many therapies have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF) in controlled settings, but there are limited data available to inform best practices for hospital and post-discharge quality improvement initiatives. The CONNECT-HF study is a prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 161 hospitals in the United States with a 2×2 factorial design. The study is designed to assess the effect of a hospital and post-discharge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care (primary objective) on HF outcomes and quality-of-care, as well as to evaluate the effect of hospitals implementing a patient-level digital intervention compared with usual care (secondary objective). The hospital and post-discharge intervention includes audit and feedback on HF clinical process measures and outcomes for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) paired with education to sites and clinicians by a trained, nationally representative group of HF and quality improvement experts. The patient-level digital intervention is an optional ancillary study and includes a mobile application and behavioral tools that are intended to facilitate improved use of guideline-directed recommendations for self-monitoring and self-management of activity and medications for HFrEF. The effects of the interventions will be measured through an opportunity-based composite score on quality and time-to-first HF readmission or death among patients with HFrEF who present to study hospitals with acute HF and who consent to participate. The CONNECT-HF study is evaluating approaches for implementing HF guideline recommendations into practice and is one of the largest HF implementation science trials performed to date.

Association Between Hospital Volume, Processes of Care, and Outcomes in Patients Admitted With Heart Failure: Insights From Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Hospital volume is frequently used as a structural metric for assessing quality of care, but its utility in patients admitted with acute heart failure (HF) is not well characterized. Accordingly, we sought to determine the relationship between admission volume, process-of-care metrics, and short- and long-term outcomes in patients admitted with acute HF. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Get With The Guidelines-HF registry with linked Medicare inpatient data at 342 hospitals were assessed. Volume was assessed both as a continuous variable, and quartiles based on the admitting hospital annual HF case volume, as well: 5 to 38 (quartile 1), 39 to 77 (quartile 2), 78 to 122 (quartile 3), 123 to 457 (quartile 4). The main outcome measures were (1) process measures at discharge (achievement of HF achievement, quality, reporting, and composite metrics); (2) 30-day mortality and hospital readmission; and (3) 6-month mortality and hospital readmission. Adjusted logistic and Cox proportional hazards models were used to study these associations with hospital volume. RESULTS: A total of 125 595 patients with HF were included. Patients admitted to high-volume hospitals had a higher burden of comorbidities. On multivariable modeling, lower-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to be adherent to HF process measures than higher-volume hospitals. Higher hospital volume was not associated with a difference in in-hospital (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.05; P=0.78) or 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P=0.26), or 30-day readmissions (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00; P=0.10). There was a weak association of higher volumes with lower 6-month mortality (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P=0.001) and lower 6-month all-cause readmissions (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95%, CI 0.97-1.00; P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of a large contemporary prospective national quality improvement registry of older patients with HF indicates that hospital volume as a structural metric correlates with process measures, but not with 30-day outcomes, and only marginally with outcomes up to 6 months of follow-up. Hospital profiling should focus on participation in systems of care, adherence to process metrics, and risk-standardized outcomes rather than on hospital volume itself.