Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial.

Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions. Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence. Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups. Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence. Trial Registration Number: NCT00888537.

Evaluation of Direct Oral Anticoagulant Reversal Agents in Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC)-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) has high morbidity and mortality. The safety and outcome data of DOAC reversal agents in ICH are limited. Objective: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of DOAC reversal agents among patients with ICH. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through April 29, 2022. Study Selection: The eligibility criteria were (1) adult patients (age ≥18 years) with ICH receiving treatment with a DOAC, (2) reversal of DOAC, and (3) reported safety and anticoagulation reversal outcomes. All nonhuman studies and case reports, studies evaluating patients with ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and abstracted data. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion with anticoagulation reversed. The primary safety end points were all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events after the reversal agent. Results: A total of 36 studies met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 1832 patients (967 receiving 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate [4F-PCC]; 525, andexanet alfa [AA]; 340, idarucizumab). The mean age was 76 (range, 68-83) years, and 57% were men. For 4F-PCC, anticoagulation reversal was 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 55%); all-cause mortality, 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%; I2 = 68%), and thromboembolic events, 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%; I2 = 41%). For AA, anticoagulation reversal was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%; I2 = 48%); all-cause mortality, 24% (95% CI, 16%-34%; I2 = 73%), and thromboembolic events, 14% (95% CI, 10%-19%; I2 = 16%). Idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran had an anticoagulation reversal rate of 82% (95% CI, 55%-95%; I2 = 41%), all-cause mortality, 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%, I2 = 0%), and thromboembolic events, 5% (95% CI, 3%-8%; I2 = 0%). A direct retrospective comparison of 4F-PCC and AA showed no differences in anticoagulation reversal, proportional mortality, or thromboembolic events. Conclusions and Relevance: In the absence of randomized clinical comparison trials, the overall anticoagulation reversal, mortality, and thromboembolic event rates in this systematic review and meta-analysis appeared similar among available DOAC reversal agents for managing ICH. Cost, institutional formulary status, and availability may restrict reversal agent choice, particularly in small community hospitals.

Anticoagulation in COVID-19: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Rapid Guidance From Mayo Clinic.

A higher risk of thrombosis has been described as a prominent feature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review synthesizes current data on thrombosis risk, prognostic implications, and anticoagulation effects in COVID-19. We included 37 studies from 4070 unique citations. Meta-analysis was performed when feasible. Coagulopathy and thrombotic events were frequent among patients with COVID-19 and further increased in those with more severe forms of the disease. We also present guidance on the prevention and management of thrombosis from a multidisciplinary panel of specialists from Mayo Clinic. The current certainty of evidence is generally very low and continues to evolve.

Associations Among Practice Variation, Clinician Characteristics, and Care Algorithm Usage: A Multispecialty Vignette Study.

The objective was to quantitatively evaluate clinician characteristics associated with unwarranted practice variation, and how clinical care algorithms influence this variation. Participants (142 physicians, 53 nurse practitioners, and 9 physician assistants in family medicine, internal medicine, and cardiology) described their management of 4 clinical vignettes, first based on their own practice (unguided), then using care algorithms (guided). The authors quantitatively estimated variation in management. Cardiologists demonstrated 17% lower variation in unguided responses than generalists (fold-change 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.97]), and those who agreed that practice variation can realistically be reduced had 16% lower variation than those who did not (fold-change 0.84 [CI, 0.71, 0.99]). A 17% reduction in variation was observed for guided responses compared with baseline (unguided) responses (fold-change 0.83 [CI, 0.76, 0.90]). Differences were otherwise similar across clinician subgroups and attitudes. Unwarranted practice variation was similar across most clinician subgroups. The authors conclude that care algorithms can reduce variation in management.

Practice variation and practice guidelines: Attitudes of generalist and specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

OBJECTIVE: To understand clinicians' beliefs about practice variation and how variation might be reduced. METHODS: We surveyed board-certified physicians (N = 178), nurse practitioners (N = 60), and physician assistants (N = 12) at an academic medical center and two community clinics, representing family medicine, general internal medicine, and cardiology, from February-April 2016. The Internet-based questionnaire ascertained clinicians' beliefs regarding practice variation, clinical practice guidelines, and costs. RESULTS: Respondents agreed that practice variation should be reduced (mean [SD] 4.5 [1.1]; 1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree), but agreed less strongly (4.1 [1.0]) that it can realistically be reduced. They moderately agreed that variation is justified by situational differences (3.9 [1.2]). They strongly agreed (5.2 [0.8]) that clinicians should help reduce healthcare costs, but agreed less strongly (4.4 [1.1]) that reducing practice variation would reduce costs. Nearly all respondents (234/249 [94%]) currently depend on practice guidelines. Clinicians rated differences in clinician style and experience as most influencing practice variation, and inaccessibility of guidelines as least influential. Time to apply standards, and patient decision aids, were rated most likely to help standardize practice. Nurse practitioners and physicians assistants (vs physicians) and less experienced (vs senior) clinicians rated more favorably several factors that might help to standardize practice. Differences by specialty and academic vs community practice were small. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians believe that practice variation should be reduced, but are less certain that this can be achieved. Accessibility of guidelines is not a significant barrier to practice standardization, whereas more time to apply standards is viewed as potentially helpful.

Information needs of generalists and specialists using online best-practice algorithms to answer clinical questions.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties. METHODS: We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compared usage across specialty and provider type. RESULTS: During the study period, 4009 clinicians (2014 physicians in practice, 1117 resident physicians, and 878 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) viewed 140 CPMs a total of 81 764 times. Usage varied from 1 to 809 views per person, and from 9 to 4615 views per CPM. Residents and NP/PAs viewed CPMs more often than practicing physicians. Among 2742 users with known specialties, generalists ( N = 1397) used CPMs more often (mean 31.8, median 7 views) than specialists ( N = 1345; mean 6.8, median 2; P < .0001). The topics used by specialists largely aligned with topics within their specialties. The top 20% of available CPMs (28/140) collectively accounted for 61% of uses. In all, 2106 clinicians (52%) returned to the same CPM more than once (average 7.8 views per topic; median 4, maximum 195). Generalists revisited topics more often than specialists (mean 8.8 vs 5.1 views per topic; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: CPM usage varied widely across topics, specialties, and individual clinicians. Frequently viewed and recurrently viewed topics might warrant special attention. Specialists usually view topics within their specialty and may have unique information needs.

2015 ACC Health Policy Statement on Cardiovascular Team-Based Care and the Role of Advanced Practice Providers.

The mission of the American College of Cardiology is "to transform cardiovascular care and improve heart health." Cardiovascular team-based care is a paradigm for practice that can transform care, improve heart health, and help meet the demands of the future. One strategic goal of the College is to help members successfully transition their clinical practices to the future, with all its complexity, challenges, and opportunities. The ACC's strategic plan is aligned with the triple aim of improved care, improved population health, and lower costs per capita. The traditional understanding of quality, access, and cost is that you cannot improve one component without diminishing the others. With cardiovascular team-based care, it is possible to achieve the triple aim of improving quality, access, and cost simultaneously to also improve cardiovascular health. Striving to serve the best interests of patients is the true north of our guiding principles. Cardiovascular team-based care is a model that can improve care coordination and communication and allow each team member to focus more on the quality of care. In addition, the cardiovascular team-based care model increases access to cardiovascular care and allows expansion of services to populations and geographic areas that are currently underserved. This document will increase awareness of the important components of cardiovascular team-based care and create an opportunity for more discussion about the most creative and effective means of implementing it. We hope that this document will stimulate further discussions and activities within the ACC and beyond about team-based care. We have identified areas that need improvement, specifically in APP education and state regulation. The document encourages the exploration of collaborative care models that should enable team members to optimize their education, training, experience, and talent. Improved team leadership, coordination, collaboration, engagement, and efficiency will enable the delivery of higher-value care to the betterment of our patients and society.

A nonresident cardiovascular inpatient service improves residents' experiences in an academic medical center: a new model to meet the challenges of the new millennium.

PURPOSE: Hospital practices in academic medical centers have fewer medical residents available to provide hospital care, necessitating alternative models for patient care. This article reports a new model for care of inpatients with cardiovascular diseases. METHOD: In 1998, a new nonresident cardiovascular patient care (Cardiology IV) service was implemented that used a team approach of staff attending cardiologists, cardiovascular fellows, midlevel practitioners (nurse practitioners and physician's assistants), and nurses to evaluate and treat patients. Standard dismissal information was collected for all patients dismissed in 1998 to compare diagnosis-related group, length of stay, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day readmission rates for Cardiology IV. These characteristics were compared with those for the remaining resident teaching services. Patients' satisfaction surveys from 1997 and 1998 were compared. Attending physicians' and internal medicine residents' satisfaction before and after the implementation of the new service was also compared. RESULTS: Staff and resident physicians were more satisfied with their hospital rotations after this intervention was introduced. Optimal patient care was maintained, and efficiency enhanced. Patients on Cardiology IV had a shorter length of stay compared with patients on the resident teaching service. CONCLUSIONS: This new hospital model has provided an alternative to patient care without the need for residents and protects education on the conventional teaching services. This model maintains optimal patient care and has resulted in enhanced satisfaction of attending staff and residents.