Bending the Cardiovascular Event Curve by Evaluating the Potential Impact of Achieving Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goal Across a Large Health System Among Secondary Prevention Patients.

Guidelines recommend aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, the recommended threshold of LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL is often not achieved. We used data from the Duke University Health System electronic health record to characterize patterns of lipid levels and lipid management in patients with ASCVD to estimate the number of clinical events that could be prevented by achieving LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL . A multivariable logistic regression model was developed to predict the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization and was validated through bootstrapping. The number needed to treat to prevent an event was then determined. Among 56,230 patients with ASCVD, the median (quartile 1, quartile 3) age was 68.6 years (59.9, 76.2), 47% were women, and 27% were non-Hispanic Black. LDL-C was >70 mg/dL in 39,566 of patients (70%); these patients were more frequently female (51% vs 36%), non-Hispanic Black (28% vs 23%), and less frequently on statin therapy (67% vs 91%) than those with LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL . A predictive model with reasonable discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.760 to 0.77) and calibration (slope 0.99) determined that if the overall population achieved an LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL, 734 clinical events (455 myocardial infarctions, 186 strokes, and 93 coronary revascularizations) could be prevented in a year. Achieving LDL-C ≤70 mg/dL in patients with ASCVD across a health system could prevent significant clinical events within a single year. In conclusion, this study quantifies the potential benefit of a system-wide effort to achieve guideline-based LDL-C goals.

A Customized Electronic Health Record-Based Tool Highlights and Addresses Gaps in Patient Safety.

The authors present a tool to improve gaps in patient safety using the electronic health record. The tool integrates gap identification, passive alerts, and actions into a single interface embedded within clinicians' workflow. The tool was developed to address venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, prevention of hypo- and hyperglycemia, code status documentation, bowel movement frequency, and skilled nursing facility transitions. Alerts and actions during silent and live periods were retrospectively analyzed. The most prevalent safety gaps were lack of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (40.4% of alerts), constipation (19.3%), and lack of code status (18.4%). Disparities in safety gaps were present by patient race, sex, and socioeconomic status. Usability testing showed positive feedback without significant alert burden. Thus, a safety gap tool was successfully built to study and address patient safety issues. The tool's strengths are its integration within the electronic health record, ease of use, customizability, and scalability.

Using Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Evaluate Patients with Chest Pain in the Emergency Department.

Chest pain is one of the most common presenting symptoms in the emergency department (ED). Among patients with abnormal troponins, it is imperative to quickly and accurately distinguish type 1 acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from other etiologies of myocardial injury. Although high-sensitivity troponin assays introduced a high negative predictive value for AMI, they have exposed the need for diagnostic modalities that can determine the etiology of acute myocardial injury. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is an effective tool to risk stratifying chest pain among patients in the ED. CMR is non-invasive and has a lower cost of care and shorter length of stay compared to those of invasive coronary angiography. It also provides detailed information on cardiac morphology, function, tissue edema, and location and pattern of tissue damage that can help to differentiate many etiologies of cardiac injury. CMR is particularly useful to distinguish chest pain due to type 1 AMI versus supply-demand mismatch due to acute cardiac noncoronary artery disease. A detailed review of the literature has shown that CMR with stress testing is safe to use in patients presenting to the ED with chest pain, with or without abnormal troponins. CMR is a useful, safe, economical, and effective alternative to the traditional diagnostic tools that are typically used in this patient population. It is a practical tool to risk-stratify patients with possible cardiac pathology and to clarify diagnosis without invasive testing.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patterns of outpatient cardiovascular care.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about abrupt changes in the way health care is delivered, and the impact of transitioning outpatient clinic visits to telehealth visits on processes of care and outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated ordering patterns during cardiovascular telehealth clinic visits in the Duke University Health System between March 15 and June 30, 2020 and 30-day outcomes compared with in-person visits in the same time frame in 2020 and in 2019. RESULTS: Within the Duke University Health System, there was a 33.1% decrease in the number of outpatient cardiovascular visits conducted in the first 15 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared with the same time period in 2019. As a proportion of total visits initially booked, 53% of visits were cancelled in 2020 compared to 35% in 2019. However, patients with cancelled visits had similar demographics and comorbidities in 2019 and 2020. Telehealth visits comprised 9.3% of total visits initially booked in 2020, with younger and healthier patients utilizing telehealth compared with those utilizing in-person visits. Compared with in-person visits in 2020, telehealth visits were associated with fewer new (31.6% for telehealth vs 44.6% for in person) or refill (12.9% vs 15.6%, respectively) medication prescriptions, electrocardiograms (4.3% vs 31.4%), laboratory orders (5.9% vs 21.8%), echocardiograms (7.3% vs 98%), and stress tests (4.4% vs 6.6%). When adjusted for age, race, and insurance status, those who had a telehealth visit or cancelled their visit were less likely to have an emergency department or hospital encounter within 30 days compared with those who had in-person visits (adjusted rate ratios (aRR) 0.76 [95% 0.65, 0.89] and aRR 0.71 [95% 0.65, 0.78], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In response to the perceived risks of routine medical care affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, different phenotypes of patients chose different types of outpatient cardiology care. A better understanding of these differences could help define necessary and appropriate mode of care for cardiology patients.