Complementary and Alternative Medicines in the Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are commonly used across the world by diverse populations and ethnicities but remain largely unregulated. Although many CAM agents are purported to be efficacious and safe by the public, clinical evidence supporting the use of CAM in heart failure remains limited and controversial. Furthermore, health care professionals rarely inquire or document use of CAM as part of the medical record, and patients infrequently disclose their use without further prompting. The goal of this scientific statement is to summarize published efficacy and safety data for CAM and adjunctive interventional wellness approaches in heart failure. Furthermore, other important considerations such as adverse effects and drug interactions that could influence the safety of patients with heart failure are reviewed and discussed.

Achieving Equity in Hospital Performance Assessments Using Composite Race-Specific Measures of Risk-Standardized Readmission and Mortality Rates for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The contemporary measures of hospital performance for heart failure hospitalization and 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate (RSRR) and risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) are estimated using the same risk adjustment model and overall event rate for all patients. Thus, these measures are mainly driven by the care quality and outcomes for the majority racial and ethnic group, and may not adequately represent the hospital performance for patients of Black and other races. METHODS: Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries from January 2014 to December 2019 hospitalized with heart failure were identified. Hospital-level 30-day RSRR and RSMR were estimated using the traditional race-agnostic models and the race-specific approach. The composite race-specific performance metric was calculated as the average of the RSRR/RMSR measures derived separately for each race and ethnicity group. Correlation and concordance in hospital performance for all patients and patients of Black and other races were assessed using the composite race-specific and race-agnostic metrics. RESULTS: The study included 1 903 232 patients (75.7% White [n=1 439 958]; 14.5% Black [n=276 684]; and 9.8% other races [n=186 590]) with heart failure from 1860 hospitals. There was a modest correlation between hospital-level 30-day performance metrics for patients of White versus Black race (Pearson correlation coefficient: RSRR=0.42; RSMR=0.26). Compared with the race-agnostic RSRR and RSMR, composite race-specific metrics for all patients demonstrated stronger correlation with RSRR (correlation coefficient: 0.60 versus 0.74) and RSMR (correlation coefficient: 0.44 versus 0.51) for Black patients. Concordance in hospital performance for all patients and patients of Black race was also higher with race-specific (versus race-agnostic) metrics (RSRR=64% versus 53% concordantly high-performing; 61% versus 51% concordantly low-performing). Race-specific RSRR and RSMR metrics (versus race-agnostic) led to reclassification in performance ranking of 35.8% and 39.2% of hospitals, respectively, with better 30-day and 1-year outcomes for patients of all race groups at hospitals reclassified as high-performing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with heart failure, race-specific 30-day RSMR and RSRR are more equitable in representing hospital performance for patients of Black and other races.

Equity in Cardio-Oncology Care and Research: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Advances in cancer therapeutics have revolutionized survival outcomes in patients with cancer. However, cardiovascular toxicities associated with specific cancer therapeutics adversely affect the outcomes of patients with cancer. Recent studies have uncovered excess risks of these cardiotoxic events, especially in traditionally underrepresented populations. Despite advances in strategies to limit the risks of cardiovascular events among cancer survivors, relatively limited guidance is available to address the rapidly growing problem of disparate cardiotoxic risks among women and underrepresented patient populations. Previously decentralized and sporadic evaluations have led to a lack of consensus on the definitions, investigation, and potential optimal strategies to address disparate cardiotoxicity in contemporary cancer care (eg, with immunotherapy, biologic, or cytotoxic therapies) settings. This scientific statement aims to define the current state of evidence for disparate cardiotoxicity while proposing uniform and novel methodological approaches to inform the identification and mitigation of disparate cardio-oncology outcomes in future clinical trials, registries, and daily clinical care settings. We also propose an evidence-based integrated approach to identify and mitigate disparities in the routine clinical setting. This consensus scientific statement summarizes and clarifies available evidence while providing guidance on addressing inequities in the era of emerging anticancer therapies.

Race-Based Differences in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Process Metrics and Mortality From 2015 Through 2021: An Analysis of 178 062 Patients From the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: Systems of care have been developed across the United States to standardize care processes and improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The effect of contemporary STEMI systems of care on racial and ethnic disparities in achievement of time-to-treatment goals and mortality in STEMI is uncertain. METHODS: We analyzed 178 062 patients with STEMI (52 293 women and 125 769 men) enrolled in the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease registry between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2021. Patients were stratified into and outcomes compared among 3 racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White, Hispanic White, and Black. The primary outcomes were the proportions of patients achieving the following STEMI process metrics: prehospital ECG obtained by emergency medical services; hospital arrival to ECG obtained within 10 minutes for patients not transported by emergency medical services; arrival-to-percutaneous coronary intervention time within 90 minutes; and first medical contact-to-device time within 90 minutes. A secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Analyses were performed separately in women and men, and all outcomes were adjusted for age, comorbidities, acuity of presentation, insurance status, and socioeconomic status measured by social vulnerability index based on patients' county of residence. RESULTS: Compared with non-Hispanic White patients with STEMI, Hispanic White patients and Black patients had lower odds of receiving a prehospital ECG and achieving targets for door-to-ECG, door-to-device, and first medical contact-to-device times. These racial disparities in treatment goals were observed in both women and men, and persisted in most cases after multivariable adjustment. Compared with non-Hispanic White women, Hispanic White women had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.72]), whereas Black women did not (odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.74-1.03]). Compared with non-Hispanic White men, adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar in Hispanic White men (odds ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.82-1.18]) and Black men (odds ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.85-1.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Race- or ethnicity-based disparities persist in STEMI process metrics in both women and men, and mortality differences are observed in Hispanic White compared with non-Hispanic White women. Further research is essential to evolve systems of care to mitigate racial differences in STEMI outcomes.

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.

Development and Validation of a Long-Term Incident Heart Failure Risk Model.

BACKGROUND: Average lifetime risk for heart failure (HF) is high but differs significantly across and within sex-race groups. No models for estimating long-term risk for HF exist, which would allow for earlier identification and interventions in high-risk subsets. The authors aim to derive 30-year HF risk equations. METHODS: Adults between the ages of 20 to 59 years and free of cardiovascular disease at baseline from 5 population-based cohorts were included. Among 24 838 participants (55% women, 25% Black based on self-report), follow-up consisted of 599 551 person-years. Sex- and race-specific 30-year HF risk equations were derived and validated accounting for competing risk of non-HF death. HF was based on a clinical diagnosis. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed using 10-fold cross-validation. Finally, the model was applied to varying risk factor patterns for systematic examination. RESULTS: The rate of incident HF was 4.0 per 1000 person-years. Harrell C statistics were 0.82 (0.80-0.83) and 0.84 (0.82-0.85) in White and Black men and 0.84 (0.82-0.85) and 0.85 (0.83-0.87) in White and Black women, respectively. Hosmer-Lemeshow calibration was acceptable, with χ2 <30 in all subgroups. Risk estimation varied across sex-race groups: for example, in an average 40-year-old nonsmoker with an untreated systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and body mass index of 30 kg/m2, risk was estimated to be 22.8% in a Black man, 13.7% in a White man, 13.0% in a Black woman, and 12.1% in a White woman. CONCLUSIONS: Sex- and race-specific equations for prediction of long-term risk of HF demonstrated high discrimination and adequate calibration.

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.

The Association Between Beta-blocker and Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor Use After Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Hospitalization and Outcomes in Older Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Beta-blockers (BB) and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are foundational for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, given the increased risk of side effects in older patients, uncertainty remains as to whether, on net, older patients benefit as much as the younger patients studied in trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry linked with Medicare data, overlap propensity weighted Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association between BB and RASi use at hospital discharge and 30-day and 1-year outcomes among patients with HFrEF. Among the 48,711 patients (aged ≥65 years) hospitalized with HFrEF, there were significant associations between BB and/or RASi use at discharge and lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality, including those over age 85 (30-day hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.45-0.70; 1-year hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.78). In addition, the magnitude of benefit associated with BB and/or RASi use after discharge did not decrease with advancing age. Even among the oldest patients, those over age 85, with hypotension, renal insufficiency or frailty, BB and/or RASi use at discharge was still associated with lower 1-year mortality or readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Among older patients hospitalized with HFrEF, BB and/or RASi use at discharge is associated with lower rates of 30-day and 1-year mortality across all age groups and the magnitude of this benefit does not seem to decrease with advancing age. These data suggest that, absent a clinical contraindication, BB and RASi should be considered in all patients hospitalized with HFrEF before or at hospital discharge, regardless of age.

Excess Mortality and Years of Potential Life Lost Among the Black Population in the US, 1999-2020.

Importance: Amid efforts in the US to promote health equity, there is a need to assess recent progress in reducing excess deaths and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population. Objective: To evaluate trends in excess mortality and years of potential life lost among the Black population compared with the White population. Design, setting, and participants: Serial cross-sectional study using US national data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 1999 through 2020. We included data from non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations across all age groups. Exposures: Race as documented in the death certificates. Main outcomes and measures: Excess age-adjusted all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, age-specific mortality, and years of potential life lost rates (per 100 000 individuals) among the Black population compared with the White population. Results: From 1999 to 2011, the age-adjusted excess mortality rate declined from 404 to 211 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals among Black males (P for trend <.001). However, the rate plateaued from 2011 through 2019 (P for trend = .98) and increased in 2020 to 395-rates not seen since 2000. Among Black females, the rate declined from 224 excess deaths per 100 000 individuals in 1999 to 87 in 2015 (P for trend <.001). There was no significant change between 2016 and 2019 (P for trend = .71) and in 2020 rates increased to 192-levels not seen since 2005. The trends in rates of excess years of potential life lost followed a similar pattern. From 1999 to 2020, the disproportionately higher mortality rates in Black males and females resulted in 997 623 and 628 464 excess deaths, respectively, representing a loss of more than 80 million years of life. Heart disease had the highest excess mortality rates, and the excess years of potential life lost rates were largest among infants and middle-aged adults. Conclusions and relevance: Over a recent 22-year period, the Black population in the US experienced more than 1.63 million excess deaths and more than 80 million excess years of life lost when compared with the White population. After a period of progress in reducing disparities, improvements stalled, and differences between the Black population and the White population worsened in 2020.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Presentation and Outcomes for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Findings From the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed longstanding racial and ethnic inequities in health risks and outcomes in the United States. We aimed to identify racial and ethnic differences in presentation and outcomes for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: The American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry is a retrospective observational registry capturing consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We present data on the first 7868 patients by race/ethnicity treated at 88 hospitals across the United States between January 17, 2020, and July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure) and COVID-19 cardiorespiratory ordinal severity score (worst to best: death, cardiac arrest, mechanical ventilation with mechanical circulatory support, mechanical ventilation with vasopressors/inotrope support, mechanical ventilation without hemodynamic support, and hospitalization alone. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the relationship between race/ethnicity and each outcome adjusting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and presentation features, and accounting for clustering by hospital. RESULTS: Among 7868 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 33.0% were Hispanic, 25.5% were non-Hispanic Black, 6.3% were Asian, and 35.2% were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic and Black patients were younger than non-Hispanic White and Asian patients and were more likely to be uninsured. Black patients had the highest prevalence of obesity, hypertension, and diabetes. Black patients also had the highest rates of mechanical ventilation (23.2%) and renal replacement therapy (6.6%) but the lowest rates of remdesivir use (6.1%). Overall mortality was 18.4% with 53% of all deaths occurring in Black and Hispanic patients. The adjusted odds ratios for mortality were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.76-1.14) for Black patients, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.73-1.11) for Hispanic patients, and 1.31 (95% CI, 0.96-1.80) for Asian patients compared with non-Hispanic White patients. The median odds ratio across hospitals was 1.99 (95% CI, 1.74-2.48). Results were similar for major adverse cardiovascular events. Asian patients had the highest COVID-19 cardiorespiratory severity at presentation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.16-1.90]). CONCLUSIONS: Although in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ by race/ethnicity after adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients bore a greater burden of mortality and morbidity because of their disproportionate representation among COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Is the affordable care act medicaid expansion associated with receipt of heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy by race and ethnicity?

BACKGROUND: Uninsurance is a known contributor to racial/ethnic health inequities. Insurance is often needed for prescriptions and follow-up appointments. Therefore, we determined whether the Affordable Care Act(ACA) Medicaid Expansion was associated with increased receipt of guideline-directed medical treatment(GDMT) at discharge among patients hospitalized with heart failure(HF) by race/ethnicity. METHODS: Using Get With The Guidelines-HF registry, logistic regression was used to assess odds of receiving GDMT(HF medications; education; follow-up appointment) in early vs non-adopter states before(2012 - 2013) and after ACA Medicaid Expansion(2014 - 2019) within each race/ethnicity, accounting for patient-level covariates and within-hospital clustering. We tested for an interaction(p-int) between GDMT and pre/post Medicaid Expansion time periods. RESULTS: Among 271,606 patients(57.5% early adopter, 42.5% non-adopter), 65.5% were White, 22.8% African American, 8.9% Hispanic, and 2.9% Asian race/ethnicity. Independent of ACA timing, Hispanic patients were more likely to receive all GDMT for residing in early adopter states compared to non-adopter states (P <.0001). In fully-adjusted analyses, ACA Medicaid Expansion was associated with higher odds of receipt of ACEI/ARB/ARNI in Hispanic patients [before ACA:OR 0.40(95%CI:0.13,1.23); after ACA:OR 2.46(1.10,5.51); P-int = .0002], but this occurred in the setting of an immediate decline in prescribing patterns, particularly among non-adopter states, followed by an increase that remained lowest in non-adopter states. The ACA was not associated with receipt of GDMT for other racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among GWTG-HF hospitals, Hispanic patients were more likely to receive all GDMT if they resided in early adopter states rather than non-adopter states, independent of ACA Medicaid Expansion timing. ACA implementation was only associated with higher odds of receipt of ACEI/ARB/ARNI in Hispanic patients. Additional steps are needed for improved GDMT delivery for all.

Association of readmission penalty amount with subsequent 30-day risk standardized readmission and mortality rates among patients hospitalized with heart failure: An analysis of get with the guidelines - heart failure participating centers.

BACKGROUND: The Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program penalizes hospitals with excess 30-day risk-standardized readmission rates (RSRR) for heart failure (HF). The association of financial penalty amount with subsequent short-term clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Patients admitted to American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-HF registry participating centers from October 1, 2012 through December 1, 2015 who had Medicare-linked data were included. October 2012 hospital-specific penalty amounts were calculated based on diagnosis-related group payments and excess readmission ratios. Adjusted Cox models were created to evaluate the association of penalty amount categories (non-penalized: 0%; low-penalized: >0%-<0.50%; mid-penalized ≥0.50%-<0.99%; high-penalized ≥0.99%) with subsequent 30-day RSRR and risk-standardized mortality rates (RSMR). Trends in post-discharge 30-day RSRR and RSMR from 2012 to 2015 were analyzed across hospitals stratified by penalty amount categories. RESULTS: The present study included 61,329 patients who were admitted across 262 hospitals. Compared with patients admitted to non-penalized hospitals (36.3%), those admitted to increasingly penalized hospitals were more likely to have higher 30-day RSRR (low-penalized [43.9%]: HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.04-1.16]; mid-penalized [12.0%]: HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.99-1.16]; high-penalized [7.9%]: HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.12-1.35]) but not 30-day RSMR. Over time, 30-day RSRR and RSMR did not meaningfully change across penalized versus non-penalized hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Financial penalties based on 30-day RSRR are not associated with declines in 30-day RSRR or RSMR from 2012 to 2015 among patients hospitalized with HF. Financially penalizing hospitals based on current Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program metrics may not incentivize improvements in short-term clinical outcomes for HF.

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.

Health System-Level Performance in Prescribing Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results From the CONNECT-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Health system-level interventions to improve use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) often fail in the acute care setting. We sought to identify factors associated with high performance in adoption of GDMT among health systems in CONNECT-HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Site-level composite quality scores were calculated at discharge and last follow-up. Site performance was defined as the average change in score from baseline to last follow-up and analyzed by performance tertile using a mixed-effects model with baseline performance as a fixed effect and site as a random effect. Among 150 randomized sites, the mean 12-month improvement in GDMT was 1.8% (-26.4% to 60.0%). Achievement of 50% or more of the target dose for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and beta-blockers at 12 months was modest, even at the highest performing sites (median 29.6% [23%, 41%] and 41.2% [29%, 50%]). Sites achieving higher GDMT scores had care teams that included social workers and pharmacists, as well as patients who were able to afford medications and access medication lists in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial gaps in site-level use of GDMT were found, even among the highest performing sites. The failure of hospital-level interventions to improve quality metrics suggests that a team-based approach to care and improved patient access to medications are needed for postdischarge success.

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.

Association Between Neighborhood-Level Poverty and Incident Atrial Fibrillation: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. While neighborhood-level factors, such as poverty, have been related to prevalence of AF risk factors, the association between neighborhood poverty and incident AF has been limited. OBJECTIVE: Using a large cohort from a health system serving the greater Chicago area, we sought to determine the association between neighborhood-level poverty and incident AF. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults, aged 30 to 80 years, without baseline cardiovascular disease from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2018. MAIN MEASURES: We geocoded and matched residential addresses of all eligible patients to census-level poverty estimates from the American Community Survey. Neighborhood-level poverty (low, intermediate, and high) was defined as the proportion of residents in the census tract living below the federal poverty threshold. We used generalized linear mixed effects models with a logit link function to examine the association between neighborhood poverty and incident AF, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical AF risk factors. KEY RESULTS: Among 28,858 in the cohort, patients in the high poverty group were more often non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic and had higher rates of AF risk factors. Over 5 years of follow-up, 971 (3.4%) patients developed incident AF. Of these, 502 (51.7%) were in the low poverty, 327 (33.7%) in the intermediate poverty, and 142 (14.6%) in the high poverty group. The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of AF was higher for the intermediate poverty compared with that for the low poverty group (aOR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01-1.48]). The point estimate for the aOR of AF incidence was similar, but not statistically significant, for the high poverty compared with the low poverty group (aOR 1.25 [95% CI 0.98-1.59]). CONCLUSION: In adults without baseline cardiovascular disease managed in a large, integrated health system, intermediate neighborhood poverty was significantly associated with incident AF. Understanding neighborhood-level drivers of AF disparities will help achieve equitable care.

Reimagining educational equity through strategic alliance partnerships in response to the USA STEM-M diversity gap.

Addressing the USA diversity gap in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEM-M) through strategic alliance partnerships (SAPs) is an innovative solution toward combating the educational inequalities presented in K-12 education for marginalized youth interested in STEM-M professions. We present a model that unites multiple stakeholder s committed to diversifying the workforce in STEM-M, through the implementation of a multi-year high school pipeline program designed to better achieve STEM-M equity, access and opportunity at the secondary school level. We developed a unique model based on an SAP in a large metropolitan area in the Midwest that joins an Academic Medical Center and a local Public High School. Our results involving 46 students over 8 years demonstrate 100% high school graduation rates; 97% college attendance with full or partial scholarship support, and early evidence of post-graduation aspirations in STEM-M careers. Our early progress calls for more rigorous study against standard educational practices. If our program is proven to be more effective, then potentially more strategic public-private partnerships to foster K-12 pipeline programs to better achieve equity through educational access, opportunities and resources should be developed and targeted for those marginalized youth that have been historically denied STEM-M opportunities. After 10 years of dedicated effort, we see evidence of potential benefits of this SAP to develop K-12 pipeline programs with similar aims of STEM-M diversification, particularly by way of more-equitable provision of educational opportunities to students belonging to minority racial and ethnic groups.

Advancing Healthcare Reform: The American Heart Association's 2020 Statement of Principles for Adequate, Accessible, and Affordable Health Care: A Presidential Advisory From the American Heart Association.

The mission of the American Heart Association is to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives. The American Heart Association has consistently prioritized the needs and perspective of the patient in taking positions on healthcare reform while recognizing the importance of biomedical research, providers, and healthcare delivery systems in advancing the care of patients and the prevention of disease. The American Heart Association's vision for healthcare reform describes the foundational changes needed for the health system to serve the best interests of patients and to achieve health care and coverage that are adequate, accessible, and affordable for everyone living in the United States. The American Heart Association is committed to advancing the dialogue around healthcare reform and has prepared this updated statement of our principles, placed in the context of the advances in coverage and care that have occurred after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the rapidly changing landscape of healthcare delivery systems, and our evolving recognition that efforts to prevent cardiovascular disease can have synergistic benefit in preventing other diseases and improving overall well-being. These updated principles focus on expanding access to affordable health care and coverage; enhancing the availability of evidence-based preventive services; eliminating disparities that limit the availability and equitable delivery of health care; strengthening the public health infrastructure to respond to social determinants of health; prioritizing and accelerating investments in biomedical research; and growing a diverse, culturally competent health and healthcare workforce prepared to meet the challenges of delivering high-value health care.