Hospital at Home as a Treatment Strategy for Worsening Heart Failure.

Hospital at home (HaH) is an innovative care model that may be particularly suited for heart failure (HF). Outpatient visits and inpatient care have been the 2 traditional settings for HF care, yet may not match the social and medical needs of patients at all times. Alternative models such as HaH may represent an effective and patient-centered option for select patients with worsening HF. To date, limited research in HF and other disease states has supported HaH as being safe and lower cost than traditional inpatient admission. Supporting HaH are new payment structures, such as Medicare's Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver program. In combination with outpatient visits, outpatient intravenous diuretic clinics, inpatient care, and cardiac intensive care, HaH could be a core component of a comprehensive care model with the potential to match resource utilization with the needs of patients across the spectrum of HF severity, and improve patient outcomes.

The Promise and Risks of mHealth in Heart Failure Care.

Mobile health (mHealth) is an emerging approach to health care. It involves wearable, connected technologies that facilitate patient-symptom or physiological monitoring, support clinical feedback to patients and physicians, and promote patients' education and self-care. Evolving algorithms may involve artificial intelligence and can assist in data aggregation and health care teams' interpretations. Ultimately, the goal is not merely to collect data; rather, it is to increase actionability. mHealth technology holds particular promise for patients with heart failure, especially those with frequently changing clinical status. mHealth, ideally, can identify care opportunities, anticipate clinical courses and augment providers' capacity to implement, titrate and monitor interventions safely, including evidence-based therapies. Although there have been marked advancements in the past decade, uncertainties remain for mHealth, including questions regarding optimal indications and acceptable payment models. In regard to mHealth capability, a better understanding is needed of the incremental benefit of mHealth data over usual care, the accuracy of specific mHealth data points in making clinical care decisions, and the efficiency and precision of algorithms used to dictate actions. Importantly, emerging regulations in the wake of COVID-19, and now the end of the federal public health emergency, offer both opportunity and risks to the broader adoption of mHealth-enabled services. In this review, we explore the current state of mHealth in heart failure, with particular attention to the opportunities and challenges this technology creates for patients, health care providers and other stakeholders.

Value-Based Care for Chest Physicians.

Value-based care aims to improve the health outcomes of patients, eliminate waste and unwarranted clinical variation, and reduce the total cost of care. Professional medical societies have put forward guidelines to raise awareness on unproven practice patterns (Choosing Wisely Campaign), and payers have sought to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment models with value-based contracts that share financial gains or losses based on achieving high-quality outcomes and lowering the cost of care. Regardless of whether their practices are engaged in value-based arrangements, chest physicians should seek understanding of these principles, participate in designing and implementing practical and impactful high-value initiatives in their practices, and have a national voice on the path forward.

Fibrinogen Levels and Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Ultrasound-Assisted Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Submassive Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to test the hypothesis that patients undergoing ultrasound-assisted catheter-directed thrombolysis (USAT) with standard alteplase and heparin dosing would not develop significant depletion of systemic fibrinogen, which may account for the lower risk of bleeding seen in contemporary trials. We also sought to compare the relative outcomes of individuals with submassive pulmonary embolism (PE) undergoing USAT and anticoagulation alone. METHODS: Utilizing a single-center prospective registry, we identified 102 consecutive adult patients with submassive PE who were considered for USAT based on a standardized treatment algorithm between November 2016 and May 2019. Patients not receiving USAT therapy were treated with anticoagulation alone. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally similar between groups (n = 51 in each group). Major bleeding rates were not significantly different between groups (2.0% vs 5.9% in USAT vs control, respectively; P=.62). Notably, no USAT patient experienced clinically significant hypofibrinogenemia (mean trough fibrinogen, 369.8 ± 127.1 mg/dL; minimum, 187 mg/dL). The mean trough fibrinogen of patients experiencing any bleeding event (major or minor) was 306.6 mg/dL (SE, 23.9 mg/dL) vs 380.3 mg/dL (SE, 20.4 mg/dL) in those without a bleeding event (P=.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort analysis of patients undergoing USAT, there was no evidence for clinically significant depletion of fibrinogen or intracranial hemorrhage. Although our data suggest an association between lower fibrinogen levels and bleeding events, our results are not clear enough to suggest a clinically useful fibrinogen cut-off value. Further study is needed to determine the utility of routine fibrinogen monitoring in this population.