COVID-19 infections and outcomes in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system.

BACKGROUND: Patients with comorbid conditions have a higher risk of mortality with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, but the impact on heart failure patients living near a disease hotspot is unknown. Therefore, we sought to characterize the prevalence and outcomes of COVID-19 in a live registry of heart failure patients across an integrated health care system in Connecticut. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the Yale Heart Failure Registry (NCT04237701) that includes 26,703 patients with heart failure across a 6-hospital integrated health care system in Connecticut was queried on April 16th, 2020 for all patients tested for COVID-19. Sociodemographic and geospatial data as well as, clinical management, respiratory failure, and patient mortality were obtained via the real-time registry. Data on COVID-19 specific care was extracted by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: COVID-19 testing was performed on 900 symptomatic patients, comprising 3.4% of the Yale Heart Failure Registry (N = 26,703). Overall, 206 (23%) were COVID- 19+. As compared to COVID-19-, these patients were more likely to be older, black, have hypertension, coronary artery disease, and were less likely to be on renin angiotensin blockers (P<0.05, all). COVID-19- patients tended to be more diffusely spread across the state whereas COVID-19+ were largely clustered around urban centers. 20% of COVID-19+ patients died, and age was associated with increased risk of death [OR 1.92 95% CI (1.33-2.78); P<0.001]. Among COVID-19+ patients who were ≥85 years of age rates of hospitalization were 87%, rates of death 36%, and continuing hospitalization 62% at time of manuscript preparation. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world snapshot of COVID-19 infection among a large cohort of heart failure patients, we found that a small proportion had undergone testing. Patients found to be COVID-19+ tended to be black with multiple comorbidities and clustered around lower socioeconomic status communities. Elderly COVID-19+ patients were very likely to be admitted to the hospital and experience high rates of mortality.

Predicting Length of Stay and the Need for Postacute Care After Acute Myocardial Infarction to Improve Healthcare Efficiency.

Background To improve value in the care of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), payment models increasingly hold providers accountable for costs. As such, providers need tools to predict length of stay (LOS) during hospitalization and the likelihood of needing postacute care facilities after discharge for acute MI patients. We developed models to estimate risk for prolonged LOS and postacute care for acute MI patients at time of hospital admission to facilitate coordinated care planning. Methods and Results We identified patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ACTION registry (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) who were discharged alive after hospitalization for acute MI between July 1, 2008 and March 31, 2017. Within a 70% random sample (Training cohort) we developed hierarchical, proportional odds models to predict LOS and hierarchical logistic regression models to predict discharge to postacute care. Models were validated in the remaining 30%. Of 633 737 patients in the Training cohort, 16.8% had a prolonged LOS (≥7 days) and 7.8% were discharged to a postacute facility (extended care, a transitional care unit, or rehabilitation). Model discrimination was moderate in the validation dataset for predicting LOS (C statistic=0.640) and strong for predicting discharge to postacute care (C statistic=0.827). For both models, discrimination was similar in ST-segment-elevation MI and non-ST-segment-elevation MI subgroups and calibration was excellent. Conclusions These models developed in a national registry can be used at the time of initial hospitalization to predict LOS and discharge to postacute facilities. Prospective testing of these models is needed to establish how they can improve care coordination and lower costs.

Electrophysiology studies in patients undergoing ICD implantation: findings from the NCDR®.

BACKGROUND: Electrophysiology studies (EPS) have historically played a role in sudden death risk stratification. More recent studies point to the left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) as a guide to implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) implantation. The extent of EPS use in patients undergoing ICD implantation in the current era remains unknown. METHODS: Patients undergoing de novo ICD implantation in the ICD Registry between September 2006 and March 2009 who also underwent EPS within 30 days before implant were compared to the remaining cohort to identify clinical characteristics that correlated with EPS performance. Multivariate models were generated using hierarchical logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: EPS were performed in 33,786 of 275,273 patients. Those undergoing EPS were more likely to have had a history of syncope, family history of sudden death, lack of congestive heart failure, narrower QRS intervals, and higher EF. Overall, 63.9% of EPS were performed in patients receiving primary prevention ICDs. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias were induced in 46.1% of primary prevention and 54.2% of secondary prevention ICD recipients. Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia was the most common type of arrhythmia induced in both groups. Complication rates were not higher in those undergoing EPS. CONCLUSIONS: EPS were performed predominantly in patients with borderline or less well-defined risk factors for sudden death. Ventricular arrhythmias induced from EPS were not uncommon and may help identify individuals at higher risk for future ICD therapies. Efforts to better define the role of EPS in patients undergoing ICD implantation should be considered.

ACCF/AHA methodology for the development of quality measures for cardiovascular technology: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value.

ACCF/AHA methodology for the development of quality measures for cardiovascular technology: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value.