Developing Clinical Risk Prediction Models for Worsening Heart Failure Events and Death by Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

Background There is a need to develop electronic health record-based predictive models for worsening heart failure (WHF) events across clinical settings and across the spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and Results We studied adults with heart failure (HF) from 2011 to 2019 within an integrated health care delivery system. WHF encounters were ascertained using natural language processing and structured data. We conducted boosted decision tree ensemble models to predict 1-year hospitalizations, emergency department visits/observation stays, and outpatient encounters for WHF and all-cause death within each LVEF category: HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (LVEF <40%), HF with mildly reduced EF (LVEF 40%-49%), and HF with preserved EF (LVEF ≥50%). Model discrimination was evaluated using area under the curve and calibration using mean squared error. We identified 338 426 adults with HF: 61 045 (18.0%) had HF with reduced EF, 49 618 (14.7%) had HF with mildly reduced EF, and 227 763 (67.3%) had HF with preserved EF. The 1-year risks of any WHF event and death were, respectively, 22.3% and 13.0% for HF with reduced EF, 17.0% and 10.1% for HF with mildly reduced EF, and 16.3% and 10.3% for HF with preserved EF. The WHF model displayed an area under the curve of 0.76 and mean squared error of 0.13, whereas the model for death displayed an area under the curve of 0.83 and mean squared error of 0.076. Performance and predictors were similar across WHF encounter types and LVEF categories. Conclusions We developed risk prediction models for 1-year WHF events and death across the LVEF spectrum using structured and unstructured electronic health record data and observed no substantial differences in model performance or predictors except for death, despite differences in underlying HF cause.

Interruptive Electronic Alerts for Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of interruptive electronic alerts in improving adherence to the American Board of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We administered 5 cluster randomized controlled trials simultaneously, using electronic medical record alerts regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, acute sinusitis treatment, vitamin D testing, carotid artery ultrasound screening, and human papillomavirus testing. For each alert, we assigned 5 outpatient clinics to an interruptive alert and 5 were observed as a control. Primary and secondary outcomes were the number of postalert orders per 100 patients at each clinic and number of triggered alerts divided by orders, respectively. Post hoc analysis evaluated whether physicians experiencing interruptive alerts reduced their alert-triggering behaviors. RESULTS: Median postalert orders per 100 patients did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranging from 0.04 to 0.40 for PSA testing. Median alerts per 100 orders did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranged from 0.004 to 0.03. In post hoc analysis, providers receiving alerts regarding PSA testing in men were significantly less likely to trigger additional PSA alerts than those in the control sites (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.12, 95% CI [0.03-0.52]). DISCUSSION: Interruptive point-of-care alerts did not yield detectable changes in the overall rate of undesired orders or the order-to-alert ratio between active and silent sites. Complementary behavioral or educational interventions are likely needed to improve efforts to curb medical overuse. CONCLUSION: Implementation of interruptive alerts at the time of ordering was not associated with improved adherence to 5 Choosing Wisely guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02709772.

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States.

IMPORTANCE: Deaths among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are partially attributed to venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboses. Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis formation, possess anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties, and may be particularly effective for treating patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission is associated with decreased risk of death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: All patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection March 1 to July 31, 2020, without a history of therapeutic anticoagulation. EXPOSURES: Prophylactic doses of subcutaneous heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or direct oral anticoagulants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 4,297 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 3,627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3,600) received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. We observed 622 deaths within 30 days of admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospitalization. In inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, cumulative adjusted incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% CI 13.1-15.5) among those receiving prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (95% CI 15.1-22.9) among those who did not. Compared to patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30-day mortality (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. Quantitative bias analysis demonstrated that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% CI 1.77). Results persisted in a number of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was associated with a decreased risk of mortality. These findings provide strong real-world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial therapy for COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission.

Trends in Readmission and Mortality Rates Following Heart Failure Hospitalization in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System From 2007 to 2017.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Veterans Affairs Health Care System provide incentives for hospitals to reduce 30-day readmission and mortality rates. In contrast with the large body of evidence describing readmission and mortality in the Medicare system, it is unclear how heart failure readmission and mortality rates have changed during this period in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Objectives: To evaluate trends in readmission and mortality after heart failure admission in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System, which had no financial penalties, in a decade involving focus on heart failure readmission reduction (2007-2017). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from all Veterans Affairs-paid heart failure admissions from January 2007 to September 2017. All Veterans Affairs-paid hospital admissions to Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs facilities for a primary diagnosis of heart failure were included, when the admission was paid for by the Veterans Affairs. Data analyses were conducted from October 2018 to March 2020. Exposures: Admission for a primary diagnosis of heart failure at discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day all-cause readmission and mortality rates. Results: A total of 164 566 patients with 304 374 hospital admissions were included. Among the 304 374 hospital admissions between 2007 and 2017, 298 260 (98.0%) were for male patients, and 195 205 (64.4%) were for white patients. The mean (SD) age was 70.8 (11.5) years. The adjusted odds ratio of 30-day readmission declined throughout the study period to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.88) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 2007 to 2008. The adjusted odds ratio of 30-day mortality remained stable, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.96-1.06) in 2015 to 2017 compared with 2007 to 2008. Stratification by left ventricular ejection fraction showed similar readmission reduction trends and no significant change in mortality, regardless of strata. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of an integrated health care system that provided guidance and nonfinancial incentives for reducing readmissions, such as public reporting of readmission rates, risk-adjusted 30-day readmission declined despite inclusion of clinical variables in risk adjustment, but mortality did not decline. Future investigations should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of specific approaches to readmission reduction to inform efficient and effective application in individual health systems, hospitals, and practices.

Warfarin utilisation and anticoagulation control in patients with atrial fibrillation and chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate warfarin prescription, quality of international normalised ratio (INR) monitoring and of INR control in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with newly diagnosed AF in the Veterans Administration (VA) healthcare system. We evaluated anticoagulation prescription, INR monitoring intensity and time in and outside INR therapeutic range (TTR) stratified by CKD. RESULTS: Of 123 188 patients with newly diagnosed AF, use of warfarin decreased with increasing severity of CKD (57.2%-46.4%), although it was higher among patients on dialysis (62.3%). Although INR monitoring intensity was similar across CKD strata, the proportion with TTR≥60% decreased with CKD severity, with only 21% of patients on dialysis achieving TTR≥60%. After multivariate adjustment, the magnitude of TTR reduction increased with CKD severity. Patients on dialysis had the highest time markedly out of range with INR <1.5 or >3.5 (30%); 12% of INR time was >3.5, and low TTR persisted for up to 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variation in anticoagulation prescription based on CKD severity. Patients with moderate-to-severe CKD, including dialysis, have substantially reduced TTR, despite comparable INR monitoring intensity. These findings have implications for more intensive warfarin management strategies in CKD or alternative therapies such as direct oral anticoagulants.

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.