Effect of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring via a Smartphone Hypertension Coaching Application or Tracking Application on Adults With Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Mobile applications (apps) may help improve hypertension self-management. Objective: To investigate the effect of an artificial intelligence smartphone coaching app to promote home monitoring and hypertension-related behaviors on systolic blood pressure level compared with a blood pressure tracking app. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 2-group, open, randomized clinical trial. Participants with uncontrolled hypertension were recruited in 2016 and 2017 and were followed up for 6 months. Data analysis was performed from April 2019 to December 2019. Interventions: Intervention group participants received a smartphone coaching app to promote home monitoring and behavioral changes associated with hypertension self-management plus a home blood pressure monitor. Control participants received a blood pressure tracking app plus a home blood pressure monitor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary study outcome was systolic blood pressure at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included self-reported antihypertensive medication adherence, home monitoring and self-management practices, measures of self-efficacy associated with blood pressure, weight, and self-reported health behaviors. Results: There were 333 participants randomized, and 297 completed the follow-up assessment. Among the participants who completed the study, the mean (SD) age was 58.9 (12.8) years, 182 (61.3%) were women, and 103 (34.7%) were black. Baseline mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 140.6 (12.2) mm Hg among intervention participants and 141.8 (13.4) mm Hg among control participants. After 6 months, the corresponding mean (SD) systolic blood pressures were 132.3 (15.0) mm Hg and 135.0 (13.9) mm Hg, with a between-group adjusted difference of -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -4.9 mm Hg to 0.8 mm Hg; P = .16). At 6 months, self-confidence in controlling blood pressure was greater in the intervention group (0.36 point on a 5-point scale; 95% CI, 0.18 point to 0.54 point; P < .001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in other secondary outcomes. The adjusted difference in self-reported physical activity was 26.7 minutes per week (95% CI, -5.4 minutes per week to 58.8 minutes per week; P = .10). Subgroup analysis raised the possibility that intervention effects differed by age. Conclusions and Relevance: Among individuals with uncontrolled hypertension, those randomized to a smartphone coaching app plus home monitor had similar systolic blood pressure compared with those who received a blood pressure tracking app plus home monitor. Given the direction of the difference in systolic blood pressure between groups and the possibility for differences in treatment effects across subgroups, future studies are warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03288142.

Associations Between Health Literacy and Medication Self-Management Among Community Health Center Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension.

PURPOSE: Examine associations between health literacy and several medication self-management constructs among a population of adults with uncontrolled hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional study of health center patients from the Chicago area with uncontrolled hypertension enrolled between April 2012 and February 2015. Medication self-management constructs-applied to hypertension medications, chronic condition medications and all medications-included: 1) medication reconciliation, 2) knowledge of drug indications, 3) understanding instructions and dosing, and 4) self-reported adherence over 4 days (no missed doses). We determined associations between health literacy and self-management outcomes using multivariable generalized linear regression. RESULTS: There were 1460 patients who completed screening interviews; 62.9% enrolled and had complete baseline data collected, and were included in the analysis. Of 919 participants, 47.4% had likely limited (low), 33.2% possibly limited, and 19.4% likely adequate health literacy. Compared to participants with likely adequate health literacy, participants with low health literacy were less likely to have chronic medications reconciled (18.0% versus 29.6%, p=0.007), know indications for chronic medications (64.1% versus 83.1%, p<0.001), and demonstrate understanding of instructions and dosing (68.1% versus 82.9%, p=0.001). Self-reported adherence to hypertension medications was higher among the low health literacy group (65.6% versus 56.0%, p=0.010). In multivariable models, health literacy was strongly associated with knowledge of drug indications, and understanding of instructions and dosing. CONCLUSION: Low health literacy was associated with worse medication self-management in several domains. However, non-adherence was greatest in the most health literate in unadjusted analysis. Among a population of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, the drivers of poor control may vary by health literacy.

Implementation and acceptability of a heart attack quality improvement intervention in India: a mixed methods analysis of the ACS QUIK trial.

BACKGROUND: The ACS QUIK trial showed that a multicomponent quality improvement toolkit intervention resulted in improvements in processes of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction in Kerala but did not improve clinical outcomes in the context of background improvements in care. We describe the development of the ACS QUIK intervention and evaluate its implementation, acceptability, and sustainability. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods process evaluation alongside a cluster randomized, stepped-wedge trial in Kerala, India. The ACS QUIK intervention aimed to reduce the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days compared with usual care across 63 hospitals (n = 21,374 patients). The ACS QUIK toolkit intervention, consisting of audit and feedback report, admission and discharge checklists, patient education materials, and guidelines for the development of code and rapid response teams, was developed based on formative qualitative research in Kerala and from systematic reviews. After four or more months of the center's participation in the toolkit intervention phase of the trial, an online survey and physician interviews were administered. Physician interviews focused on evaluating the implementation and acceptability of the toolkit intervention. A framework analysis of transcripts incorporated context and intervening mechanisms. RESULTS: Among 63 participating hospitals, 22 physicians (35%) completed online surveys. Of these, 17 (77%) respondents reported that their hospital had a cardiovascular quality improvement team, 18 (82%) respondents reported having read an audit report, admission checklist, or discharge checklist, and 19 (86%) respondents reported using patient education materials. Among the 28 interviewees (44%), facilitators of toolkit intervention implementation were physicians' support and leadership, hospital administrators' support, ease-of-use of checklists and patient education materials, and availability of training opportunities for staff. Barriers that influenced the implementation or acceptability of the toolkit intervention for physicians included time and staff constraints, Internet access, patient volume, and inadequate understanding of the quality improvement toolkit intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation and acceptability of the ACS QUIK toolkit intervention were enhanced by hospital-level management support, physician and team support, and usefulness of checklists and patient education materials. Wider and longer-term use of the toolkit intervention and its expansion to potentially other cardiovascular conditions or other locations where the quality of care is not as high as in the ACS QUIK trial may be useful for improving acute cardiovascular care in Kerala and beyond. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02256657.

Design of a randomized controlled trial comparing a mobile phone-based hypertension health coaching application to home blood pressure monitoring alone: The Smart Hypertension Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality but frequently remains uncontrolled. A smartphone application that provides coaching regarding home blood pressure monitoring and other aspects of hypertension self-care and related behavior change may be a scalable way to help manage hypertension. METHODS/DESIGN: The Smart Hypertension Control Study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial to assess the effects of a hypertension personal control program (HPCP), which consists of an automated artificial intelligence smartphone application that provides individualized support and coaching to promote home monitoring and healthy behavior changes related to hypertension self-management. Enrolled adults with uncontrolled hypertension will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to the HPCP with home blood pressure monitoring or to home monitoring alone. We plan to enroll 350 participants, with a target of 300 participants with complete six-month follow-up data. The primary study outcome will be systolic blood pressure at six months. Additional outcomes include measures of antihypertensive medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring practices, self-management practices, weight, and self-reported health behaviors. CONCLUSION: The Smart Hypertension Control Study will evaluate blood pressure and hypertension self-management behavior outcomes in participants with uncontrolled hypertension exposed to a smartphone-based hypertension health coaching application in addition to home blood pressure monitoring compared to those exposed to home blood pressure monitoring alone.

Effect of Electronic Health Record-Based Medication Support and Nurse-Led Medication Therapy Management on Hypertension and Medication Self-management: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Complex medication regimens pose self-management challenges, particularly among populations with low levels of health literacy. Objective: To test medication management tools delivered through a commercial electronic health record (EHR) with and without a nurse-led education intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group cluster randomized clinical trial was performed in community health centers in Chicago, Illinois. Participants included 794 patients with hypertension who self-reported using 3 or more medications concurrently (for any purpose). Data were collected from April 30, 2012, through February 29, 2016, and analyzed by intention to treat. Interventions: Clinics were randomly assigned to to groups: electronic health record-based medication management tools (medication review sheets at visit check-in, lay medication information sheets printed after visits; EHR-alone group), EHR-based tools plus nurse-led medication management support (EHR plus education group), or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes at 12 months included systolic blood pressure (primary outcome), medication reconciliation, knowledge of drug indications, understanding of medication instructions and dosing, and self-reported medication adherence. Medication outcomes were assessed for all hypertension prescriptions, all prescriptions to treat chronic disease, and all medications. Results: Among the 794 participants (68.6% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [9.6] years), systolic blood pressure at 12 months was greater in the EHR-alone group compared with the usual care group by 3.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9 mm Hg). Systolic blood pressure in the EHR plus education group was not significantly lower compared with the usual care group (difference, -2.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.2 to 1.3 mm Hg) but was lower compared with the EHR-alone group (-5.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.8 to -2.4 mm Hg). At 12 months, hypertension medication reconciliation was improved in the EHR-alone group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.9) and the EHR plus education group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3) compared with usual care. Understanding of medication instructions and dosing was greater in the EHR plus education group than the usual care group for hypertension medications (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.8) and all medications combined (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.8). Compared with usual care, the EHR tools alone and EHR plus education interventions did not improve hypertension medication adherence (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4 for both) or knowledge of chronic drug indications (OR for EHR tools alone, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5] and OR for EHR plus education, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study found that EHR tools in isolation improved medication reconciliation but worsened blood pressure. Combining these tools with nurse-led support suggested improved understanding of medication instructions and dosing but did not lower blood pressure compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01578577.

Blood pressure-lowering treatment strategies based on cardiovascular risk versus blood pressure: A meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines have traditionally recommended blood pressure treatment based primarily on blood pressure thresholds. In contrast, using predicted cardiovascular risk has been advocated as a more effective strategy to guide treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. We aimed to compare outcomes from a blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk with one based on systolic blood pressure (SBP) level. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used individual participant data from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) from 1995 to 2013. Trials randomly assigned participants to either blood pressure-lowering drugs versus placebo or more intensive versus less intensive blood pressure-lowering regimens. We estimated 5-y risk of CVD events using a multivariable Weibull model previously developed in this dataset. We compared the two strategies at specific SBP thresholds and across the spectrum of risk and blood pressure levels studied in BPLTTC trials. The primary outcome was number of CVD events avoided per persons treated. We included data from 11 trials (47,872 participants). During a median of 4.0 y of follow-up, 3,566 participants (7.5%) experienced a major cardiovascular event. Areas under the curve comparing the two treatment strategies throughout the range of possible thresholds for CVD risk and SBP demonstrated that, on average, a greater number of CVD events would be avoided for a given number of persons treated with the CVD risk strategy compared with the SBP strategy (area under the curve 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.72] for the CVD risk strategy versus 0.54 [95% CI 0.53-0.55] for the SBP strategy). Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 150 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 29% (95% CI 26%-31%) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 16% (95% CI 14%-18%) more events for the same number of persons treated. Compared with treating everyone with SBP ≥ 140 mmHg, a CVD risk strategy would require treatment of 3.8% (95% CI 12.5% fewer to 7.2% more) fewer persons to prevent the same number of events or would prevent 3.1% (95% CI 1.5%-5.0%) more events for the same number of persons treated, although the former estimate was not statistically significant. In subgroup analyses, the CVD risk strategy did not appear to be more beneficial than the SBP strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus or established CVD. CONCLUSIONS: A blood pressure-lowering treatment strategy based on predicted cardiovascular risk is more effective than one based on blood pressure levels alone across a range of thresholds. These results support using cardiovascular risk assessment to guide blood pressure treatment decision-making in moderate- to high-risk individuals, particularly for primary prevention.

Point-of-care testing to promote cardiovascular disease risk assessment: A proof of concept study.

Updated cholesterol guidelines emphasize multivariable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation to guide treatment decision-making in primary prevention. This study tested the preliminary feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of point-of-care testing (POCT) and quantitative CVD risk assessment in high-risk adults to increase guideline-recommended statin use in primary prevention. Participants were aged 40-75 years, without CVD or diabetes mellitus, and potentially-eligible for consideration of statins based on estimated 10-year CVD risk from last-measured risk factor levels in the electronic health record. We performed POCT to facilitate quantitative CVD risk assessment with the Pooled Cohort Equations immediately before a scheduled primary care provider (PCP) visit. Outcomes were: physician documentation of a CVD risk discussion and statin prescription on the study date. We also assessed acceptability of the intervention through structured questionnaire. We recruited 18 participants (8 from an academic practice and 10 from a federally-qualified health clinic). After the intervention, 83% of participants discussed CVD risk with their PCP, 47% received a statin recommendation from their PCP, and 29% received a new statin prescription during the PCP visit. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with the intervention. This study demonstrates that in initial testing pre-visit POCT and quantitative CVD risk assessment appears to be a feasible and acceptable intervention that may promote guideline-recommended statin initiation in primary prevention. Future research with an adequately powered trial is warranted to determine the effectiveness of this approach in clinical practice.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

Concomitant Atrial Fibrillation Surgery for People Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Clinical Question: Should patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation who are undergoing cardiac surgery undergo concomitant atrial fibrillation surgery? Bottom Line: There is moderate-quality evidence that concomitant atrial fibrillation surgery approximately doubles the likelihood of freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia while not receiving antiarrhythmic medications at least 3 months after the procedure with a small absolute increase in needing a permanent pacemaker.

Estimating Longitudinal Risks and Benefits From Cardiovascular Preventive Therapies Among Medicare Patients: The Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool: A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

The Million Hearts Initiative has a goal of preventing 1 million heart attacks and strokes-the leading causes of mortality-through several public health and healthcare strategies by 2017. The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology support the program. The Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model was developed by Million Hearts and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services as a strategy to assess a value-based payment approach toward reduction in 10-year predicted risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by implementing cardiovascular preventive strategies to manage the "ABCS" (aspirin therapy in appropriate patients, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation). The purpose of this special report is to describe the development and intended use of the Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool. The Million Hearts Tool reinforces and builds on the "2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk" by allowing clinicians to estimate baseline and updated 10-year ASCVD risk estimates for primary prevention patients adhering to the appropriate ABCS over time, alone or in combination. The tool provides updated risk estimates based on evidence from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the ABCS therapies. This novel approach to personalized estimation of benefits from risk-reducing therapies in primary prevention may help target therapies to those in whom they will provide the greatest benefit, and serves as the basis for a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services program designed to evaluate the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model.

Estimating Longitudinal Risks and Benefits From Cardiovascular Preventive Therapies Among Medicare Patients: The Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool: A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

The Million Hearts Initiative has a goal of preventing 1 million heart attacks and strokes-the leading causes of mortality-through several public health and healthcare strategies by 2017. The American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology support the program. The Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model was developed by Million Hearts and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services as a strategy to assess a value-based payment approach toward reduction in 10-year predicted risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) by implementing cardiovascular preventive strategies to manage the "ABCS" (aspirin therapy in appropriate patients, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation). The purpose of this special report is to describe the development and intended use of the Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool. The Million Hearts Tool reinforces and builds on the "2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk" by allowing clinicians to estimate baseline and updated 10-year ASCVD risk estimates for primary prevention patients adhering to the appropriate ABCS over time, alone or in combination. The tool provides updated risk estimates based on evidence from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the ABCS therapies. This novel approach to personalized estimation of benefits from risk-reducing therapies in primary prevention may help target therapies to those in whom they will provide the greatest benefit, and serves as the basis for a Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services program designed to evaluate the Million Hearts Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Model.

Concomitant atrial fibrillation surgery for people undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: People with atrial fibrillation (AF) often undergo cardiac surgery for other underlying reasons and are frequently offered concomitant AF surgery to reduce the frequency of short- and long-term AF and improve short- and long-term outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of concomitant AF surgery among people with AF who are undergoing cardiac surgery on short-term and long-term (12 months or greater) health-related outcomes, health-related quality of life, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: Starting from the year when the first "maze" AF surgery was reported (1987), we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (March 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (March 2016), Embase Ovid (March 2016), Web of Science (March 2016), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, April 2015), and Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA, March 2016). We searched trial registers in April 2016. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of any concomitant AF surgery compared with no AF surgery among adults with preoperative AF, regardless of symptoms, who were undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We evaluated the risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We included outcome data on all-cause and cardiovascular-specific mortality, freedom from atrial fibrillation, flutter, or tachycardia off antiarrhythmic medications, as measured by patient electrocardiographic monitoring greater than three months after the procedure, procedural safety, 30-day rehospitalisation, need for post-discharge direct current cardioversion, health-related quality of life, and direct costs. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model when heterogeneity was low (I² ≤ 50%) and random-effects model when heterogeneity was high (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 reports of 22 trials (1899 participants) with five additional ongoing studies and three studies awaiting classification. All included studies were assessed as having high risk of bias across at least one domain. The effect of concomitant AF surgery on all-cause mortality was uncertain when compared with no concomitant AF surgery (7.0% versus 6.6%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.59, I² = 0%, 20 trials, 1829 participants, low-quality evidence), but the intervention increased freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia off antiarrhythmic medications > three months (51.0% versus 24.1%, RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.55, I² = 0%, eight trials, 649 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The effect of concomitant AF surgery on 30-day mortality was uncertain (2.3% versus 3.1%, RR 1.25 95% CI 0.71 to 2.20, I² = 0%, 18 trials, 1566 participants, low-quality evidence), but the intervention increased the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (6.0% versus 4.1%, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.54, I² = 0%, 18 trials, 1726 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Investigator-defined adverse events, including but limited to, need for surgical re-exploration or mediastinitis, were not routinely reported but were not different between the two groups (other adverse events: 24.8% versus 23.6%, RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.34, I² = 45%, nine trials, 858 participants), but the quality of this evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For patients with AF undergoing cardiac surgery, there is moderate-quality evidence that concomitant AF surgery approximately doubles the risk of freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia off anti-arrhythmic drugs while increasing the risk of permanent pacemaker implantation. The effects on mortality are uncertain. Future, high-quality and adequately powered trials will likely affect the confidence on the effect estimates of AF surgery on clinical outcomes.

Drugs for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: The Million Hearts initiative emphasizes ABCS (aspirin for high-risk patients, blood pressure [BP] control, cholesterol level management, and smoking cessation). Evidence of the effects of drugs used to achieve ABCS has not been synthesized comprehensively in the prevention of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statins, and tobacco cessation drugs for fatal and nonfatal ASCVD outcomes in primary ASCVD prevention. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Structured search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PROSPERO International Prospective Systematic Review Trial Register to identify systematic reviews published from January 1, 2005, to June 17, 2015, that reported the effect of aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, statin, or tobacco cessation drugs on ASCVD events in individuals without prevalent ASCVD. Additional studies were identified by searching the reference lists of included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology assessment reports. Reviews were selected according to predefined criteria and appraised for methodologic quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool (range, 0-11). Studies were independently reviewed for key participant and intervention characteristics. Outcomes that were meta-analyzed in each included review were extracted. Qualitative synthesis was performed, and data were analyzed from July 2 to August 13, 2015. FINDINGS: From a total of 1967 reports, 35 systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials were identified, including 15 reviews of aspirin, 4 reviews of BP-lowering therapy, 12 reviews of statins, and 4 reviews of tobacco cessation drugs. Methodologic quality varied, but 30 reviews had AMSTAR ratings of 5 or higher. Compared with placebo, aspirin (relative risk [RR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.85-0.96) and statins (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.81) reduced the risk for ASCVD. Compared with placebo, BP-lowering therapy reduced the risk for coronary heart disease (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79-0.90) and stroke (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.73). Tobacco cessation drugs increased the odds of continued abstinence at 6 months (odds ratio range, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.60-2.06] to 2.88 [95% CI, 2.40-3.47]), but the direct effects on ASCVD were poorly reported. Aspirin increased the risk for major bleeding (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30-1.82), and statins did not increase overall risk for adverse effects (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.03). Adverse effects of BP-lowering therapy and tobacco cessation drugs were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This overview demonstrates high-quality evidence to support aspirin, BP-lowering therapy, and statins for primary ASCVD prevention and tobacco cessation drugs for smoking cessation. Treatment effects of each drug can be used to enrich discussions between health care professionals and patients in primary ASCVD prevention.

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers.

BACKGROUND: Although cholesterol guidelines emphasize cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide primary prevention, predictors of statin use in practice are unknown. We aimed to identify factors associated with a cholesterol treatment discussion and statin prescribing in a high-risk population. METHODS: We used data from a trial conducted among participants in community health centers without CVD or diabetes and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk≥10%. Cholesterol treatment discussion was assessed at 6months and statin prescription at 1year. We used logistic regressions to identify factors associated with each outcome. RESULTS: We analyzed 646 participants (89% male, mean age 60±9.5years). Cholesterol treatment discussion occurred in 19% and statin prescription in 12% of participants. Ten-year CHD risk was not associated with treatment discussion (OR 1.11 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 0.91-1.33) but was associated with statin prescription (OR 1.41 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) in unadjusted models. After adjusting for traditional CVD risk factors that contribute to CHD risk, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was independently associated with statin prescription (OR 1.82 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.66-1.99). Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81). Other drivers of CVD risk (age, smoking, and systolic blood pressure) were not associated with statin use. CONCLUSIONS: Single risk factor management strongly influences cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing patterns. Interventions that promote risk-based statin utilization are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov.: NCT01610609.

Identifying Individuals at Risk for Cardiovascular Events Across the Spectrum of Blood Pressure Levels.

BACKGROUND: We determined the proportion of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events that occur across the spectrum of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and assessed whether multivariable risk assessment can identify persons who experience ASCVD events at all levels of SBP, including those with goal levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants aged 45 to 64 years from the Framingham Offspring and Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities studies were stratified based on treated and untreated SBP levels (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, 140 to 149, 150 to 159, ≥160 mm Hg). We determined the number of excess ASCVD events in each SBP stratum by calculating the difference between observed and expected events (ASCVD event rate in untreated SBP <120 mm Hg was used as the reference). We categorized participants into 10-year ASCVD risk groups using the Pooled Cohort risk equations. There were 18 898 participants (78% white; 22% black) who were followed for 10 years. We estimated 427 excess ASCVD events, of which 56% (109 of 197) and 50% (115 of 230), respectively, occurred among untreated and treated participants with elevated SBP who were not recommended for antihypertensive therapy. Among untreated participants, 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5% identified 64% of those who experienced an ASCVD at 10 years and 30% of those who did not. Multivariable risk assessment was less useful in baseline-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Half of excess ASCVD events occurred in persons with elevated SBP who were not currently recommended for antihypertensive therapy. Multivariable risk assessment may help identify those likely to benefit from further risk-reducing therapies. These findings support consideration of multivariable risk in guiding prevention across the spectrum of SBP.