The Learning Healthcare System and Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

The learning healthcare system uses health information technology and the health data infrastructure to apply scientific evidence at the point of clinical care while simultaneously collecting insights from that care to promote innovation in optimal healthcare delivery and to fuel new scientific discovery. To achieve these goals, the learning healthcare system requires systematic redesign of the current healthcare system, focusing on 4 major domains: science and informatics, patient-clinician partnerships, incentives, and development of a continuous learning culture. This scientific statement provides an overview of how these learning healthcare system domains can be realized in cardiovascular disease care. Current cardiovascular disease care innovations in informatics, data uses, patient engagement, continuous learning culture, and incentives are profiled. In addition, recommendations for next steps for the development of a learning healthcare system in cardiovascular care are presented.

Current State of Value-Based Purchasing Programs.

The US healthcare system is rapidly moving toward rewarding value. Recent legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act, solidified the role of value-based payment in Medicare. Many private insurers are following Medicare's lead. Much of the policy attention has been on programs such as accountable care organizations and bundled payments; yet, value-based purchasing (VBP) or pay-for-performance, defined as providers being paid fee-for-service with payment adjustments up or down based on value metrics, remains a core element of value payment in Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. This review article summarizes the current state of VBP programs and provides analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for the future. Multiple inpatient and outpatient VBP programs have been implemented and evaluated; the impact of those programs has been marginal. Opportunities to enhance the performance of VBP programs include improving the quality measurement science, strengthening both the size and design of incentives, reducing health disparities, establishing broad outcome measurement, choosing appropriate comparison targets, and determining the optimal role of VBP relative to alternative payment models. VBP programs will play a significant role in healthcare delivery for years to come, and they serve as an opportunity for providers to build the infrastructure needed for value-oriented care.

Bringing Patient-Centered Outcomes Research to Life.

A substantial gap exists between medical evidence that is known and medical evidence that is put into practice. Although the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a long history of developing the content of evidence, the agency now pivots to close that gap by focusing on evidence dissemination and implementation. Achieving better health outcomes requires both the generation of new patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) knowledge and the appropriate and timely implementation of that knowledge into practice. The Affordable Care Act provided funds to support both types of PCOR efforts, with AHRQ building on years of experience to advance research dissemination and implementation. This article describes the work the AHRQ has done, is doing, and will do in the future. To communicate PCOR evidence findings, AHRQ is currently synthesizing research findings into convincing collections of evidence that can be best taken up by clinicians, patients and caregivers, and policymakers. The future direction for AHRQ is to improve the context for evidence and practice improvement, thereby creating an environment receptive to PCOR. Toward this goal, AHRQ is actively engaging partners, such as professional societies and insurers, to make evidence central to decision making. In addition, AHRQ recently launched two programs that seek to both understand and encourage the use of evidence in clinical practice. Throughout these efforts, AHRQ will continually assess needs and adapt initiatives to ensure that PCOR translates into improved patient-centered health outcomes.

Cardiometabolic impact of non-statin lipid lowering therapies.

Among the range of lipid modifying medications currently available, statins clearly stand as the primary agent capable of reducing cardiovascular risk. While non-statin lipid-lowering drugs improve lipid parameters, their impact on clinical outcomes is less clear, thus necessitating an even closer look at ancillary effects. Recent studies have reported the potential cardiometabolic effects of statins, yet considerably less information has been published about cardiometabolic changes associated with non-statin lipid-lowering agents. This review describes the cardiometabolic profile of non-statin lipid-lowering agents--fibrates, niacin, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, ezetimibe, and bile acid sequestrants--and therefore aims to facilitate informed decision-making in the pharmacologic management of lipid abnormalities.

A look at statin cost-effectiveness in view of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol management guidelines.

The 2013 cholesterol management guidelines presented a major shift in recommendations on which patients at risk of cardiovascular disease should be treated and how to treat them. Implementation of the guidelines is estimated to increase substantially the number of people who would be eligible for statin therapy. As the medical community considers the broad population impact of the new cholesterol guidelines, the issue of cost-effectiveness plays a role. This review covers the basic fundamentals of cost-effectiveness analysis and summarizes the key cost-effectiveness studies that relate to the new cholesterol guidelines.

Statin use in outpatients with obstructive coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that statin therapy reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), even among patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels <100 mg/dL. We sought to determine the extent to which patients with obstructive CAD in routine outpatient care are treated with statins, nonstatins, or no lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Within the American College of Cardiology's Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) outpatient registry, we examined rates of treatment with statin and nonstatin medications in 38 775 outpatients with obstructive CAD (history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization) and without documented contraindications to statin therapy. Among these patients, 30 160 (77.8%) were prescribed statins, 2042 (5.3%) were treated only with nonstatin lipid-lowering medications, and 6573 (17.0%) were untreated. Lack of medical insurance was associated with no statin treatment, and male sex, coexisting hypertension, and a recent coronary revascularization were associated with statin treatment. Among those not on any lipid-lowering therapy, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were available for 51.2% (3365/6573). Among these untreated patients, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were <100 mg/dL in 1794 patients (53.3%) and ≥ 100 mg/dL in 1571 patients (46.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite robust clinical trial evidence, a substantial number of patients with obstructive CAD remain untreated with statins. A small proportion were treated with nonstatin therapy, and 1 in 6 patients was simply untreated; half of the untreated patients had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values <100 mg/dL. These findings illustrate important opportunities to improve lipid management in outpatients with obstructive CAD.

Coronary heart disease in young adults.

Despite the recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD), this disease remains the leading killer of US adults of all ages. CHD in young adults is not as well characterized as CHD in older individuals because it occurs less frequently, but this disease can have devastating consequences for young patients and their families. As in older adults, the majority of coronary events in young adults are related to atherosclerosis, and one or more of the traditional CHD risk factors is typically present. Young patients, however, are more likely than older patients to be smokers, male, obese, and to have a positive family history. Risk factor reduction is thus of major importance in managing young CHD patients. Approximately 20% of CHD in young adults, however, is related to non-atherosclerotic factors, such as coronary abnormalities, connective tissue disorders, and autoimmune diseases. Cocaine and other illicit drug use have been increasingly associated with acute myocardial infarction and accelerated atherosclerosis. The differences in etiologies and risk profiles of younger and older CHD patients result in differences in disease progression, prognosis, and treatment. Limited data suggest that prognosis may be better in the young population, although long-term mortality studies have suggested otherwise. Screening for CHD in the young population may help to improve prognosis in young patients by detecting subclinical disease, although more studies are necessary to establish reference limits for this young population. Additional research must also focus on treatment concerns that are specific to young patients.

Quality improvement in the door-to-balloon times for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting without chest pain.

OBJECTIVE: To assess a quality improvement initiative aimed at minimizing door-to-balloon (DTB) times for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting without chest pain. BACKGROUND: Timely percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the cornerstone of STEMI care. The absence of chest pain delays PCI. Improvements in DTB times may need to focus on atypical presentation patients. METHODS: We compared DTB times on all STEMI patients admitted through the emergency department who underwent PCI before (Phase I; October 2004-June 2007) and after (Phase II; July 2007-October 2009) the quality improvement effort, which mandated rapid electrocardiogram (ECG) triage for an expanded list of presenting symptoms. RESULTS: In Phase I (69 patient, 60 with chest pain), patients with chest pain had a shorter mean time to first ECG (ECG Interval) by 32.0 min (P < 0.01) and nonsignificantly faster mean DTB time by 42.0 min (P = 0.07) compared to patients who presented without chest pain. In Phase II (62 patients, 56 with chest pain) compared to Phase I, mean ECG interval decreased by 44 min (P = 0.02) and mean DTB time by 99 min (P = 0.01) in patients without chest pain, eliminating the differences in ECG intervals between typical and atypical presentations (12 min vs. 11 min, P = 0.91). Multivariable analysis controlling for on/off hours and patient characteristics confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: A simple modification of emergency room ECG triage protocol, which expands indications for rapid ECG performance, was successful in improving rapid reperfusion for patients with STEMI presenting without chest pain.

Potential Impact of 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Hypertension Guideline on Contemporary Practice: A Cross-Sectional Analysis From NCDR PINNACLE Registry.

Background Clinical implications of change in the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline on the diagnosis and management of hypertension, compared with recommendations by 2014 expert panel and Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC7), are not known. Methods and Results Using data from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) PINNACLE (Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence) Registry (January 2013-Decemver 2016), we compared the proportion and clinical characteristics of patients seen in cardiology practices diagnosed with hypertension, recommended antihypertensive treatment, and achieving blood pressure (BP) goals per each guideline document. In addition, we evaluated the proportion of patients at the level of practices meeting BP targets defined by each guideline. Of 6 042 630 patients evaluated, 5 027 961 (83.2%) were diagnosed with hypertension per the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 4 521 272 (74.8%) per the 2014 panel and 4 545 976 (75.2%) per JNC7. The largest increase in hypertension prevalence was seen in younger ages, women, and those with lower cardiovascular risk. Antihypertensive medication was recommended to 70.6% of patients per the ACC/AHA guideline compared with 61.8% and 65.9% per the 2014 panel and JNC7, respectively. Among those on antihypertensive agents, 41.2% achieved BP targets per the ACC/AHA guideline, compared with 79.4% per the 2014 panel and 64.3% per JNC7. Lower proportions of women, non-White (Black and "other") races, and those at higher cardiovascular risk achieved BP goals. Median practice-level proportion of patients meeting BP targets per the 2014 panel but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 37.8% (interquartile range, 34.8%-40.7%) and per JNC7 but not the ACC/AHA guideline was 22.9% (interquartile range, 19.8%-25.9%). Conclusions Following publication of the 2017 guideline, significantly more people, particularly younger people and those with lower cardiovascular risk, will be diagnosed with hypertension and need antihypertensive treatment compared with previous recommendations. Significant practice-level variation in BP control also exists. Efforts are needed to improve guideline-concordant hypertension management in an effort to improve outcomes.

Reducing Cardiovascular Risk in the Medicare Million Hearts Risk Reduction Model: Insights From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry PINNACLE Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Million Hearts Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction Model provides financial incentives for practices to lower 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk for high-risk (ASCVD ≥30%) Medicare patients. To estimate average practice-level ASCVD risk reduction, we applied optimal trial outcomes to a real-world population with high ASCVD risk. METHODS: This study uses observational registry data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence Registry from January 2013 to June 2016. We modeled ASCVD risk reductions using historical clinical trial data (reducing cholesterol by 26.5%, reducing systolic blood pressure by 10.9%, reducing smoking rates by 21.8%) the average reduction in ASCVD risk associated with individual and combined risk factor modifications, and then percentage of practices achieving the various incentive thresholds for the Million Hearts Model. RESULTS: The final study population included 135 166 patients, with 16 248 (12.0%) with 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥30%, but without existing ASCVD. The mean 10-year ASCVD risk was 41.9% (±1 SD of 11.6). Using risk factor reductions from clinical trials, lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, and smoking rates reduced 10-year ASCVD risk by 3.3% (±3.1), 6.3% (±1.1) and 0.5% (±1.3), respectively. Combining all 3 reductions resulted in a 9.7% (±3.6) reduction, with 67 (27.0%) of practices achieving a patient-level average 10-year ASCVD risk reduction of ≥10%, 181 (73.0%) achieving a 2 to 10% reduction, and no practice achieving <2% reduction. CONCLUSIONS: In cardiology practices, about 1 out of 8 patients have a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥30% and qualify as high risk in the Million Hearts Model. If practices target the three main modifiable risk factors and achieve reductions similar to clinical trial results, ASCVD risk could be substantially lowered and all practices could receive incentive payments. These findings support the potential benefit of the Million Hearts Model and provide guidance to participating practices.

Strategies to Reduce Low-Value Cardiovascular Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Low-value health care services that provide little or no benefit to patients are common, potentially harmful, and costly. Nearly half of the patients in the United States will receive at least 1 low-value test or procedure annually, creating risk of avoidable complications from subsequent cascades of care and excess costs to patients and society. Reducing low-value care is of particular importance to cardiovascular health given the high prevalence and costs of cardiovascular disease in the United States. This scientific statement describes the current scope and impact of low-value cardiovascular care; reviews existing literature on patient-, clinician-, health system-, payer-, and policy-level interventions to reduce low-value care; proposes solutions to achieve meaningful and equitable reductions in low-value care; and suggests areas for future research priorities.

Predictors of statin adherence.

Statin therapy plays a central role in decreasing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease. However, prescribed statins are only effective if they are taken by patients on a regular basis, known as medication adherence. The factors that influence patient adherence to statin therapy can be categorized into patient factors, physician factors, and health system factors, often with interactions between the categories. Patient factors include demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, and side effects. Physician factors include the physician's own adherence to applying guideline recommendations, office visits, and their interactions with patients. Health system factors include issues such as cost and access to care. Physicians should be aware of the various elements that may influence a patient's likelihood to take statin medications to improve adherence and provide the best possible patient outcomes.

Patterns and intensity of medical therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONTEXT: The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) study, which provided optimal medical therapy (OMT) to all patients and demonstrated no incremental advantage of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on outcomes other than angina-related quality of life in stable coronary artery disease (CAD), suggests that a trial of OMT is warranted before PCI. It is unknown to what degree OMT is applied before PCI in routine practice or whether its use increased after the COURAGE trial. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of OMT in patients with stable angina undergoing PCI before and after the publication of the COURAGE trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An observational study of patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry between September 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. Analysis compared use of OMT, both before PCI and at the time of discharge, before and after the publication of the COURAGE trial. Optimal medical therapy was defined as either being prescribed or having a documented contraindication to all medicines (antiplatelet agent, ß-blocker, and statin). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of OMT before PCI and at discharge (following PCI) between the 2 study periods. RESULTS: Among all 467,211 patients (173,416 before [37.1%] and 293,795 after [62.9%] the COURAGE trial) meeting study criteria, OMT was used in 206,569 patients (44.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 44.1%-44.4%) before PCI and in 303,864 patients (65.0%; 95% CI, 64.9%-65.2%) at discharge following PCI (P < .001). Before PCI, OMT was applied in 75,381 patients (43.5%; 95% CI, 43.2%-43.7%) before the COURAGE trial and in 131,188 patients (44.7%; 95% CI, 44.5%-44.8%) after the COURAGE trial (P < .001). The use of OMT at discharge following PCI before and after the COURAGE trial was 63.5% (95% CI, 63.3%-63.7%) and 66.0% (95% CI, 65.8%-66.1%), respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI, less than half were receiving OMT before PCI and approximately two-thirds were receiving OMT at discharge following PCI, with relatively little change in these practice patterns after publication of the COURAGE trial.

The Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium: Inception of a Multicenter Collaborative to Improve Cardiovascular Care.

Despite decades of improvement in the quality and outcomes of cardiovascular care, significant gaps remain. Existing quality improvement strategies are often limited in scope to specific clinical conditions and episodic care. Health services and outcomes research is essential to inform gaps in care but rarely results in the development and implementation of care delivery solutions. Although individual health systems are engaged in projects to improve the quality of care delivery, these efforts often lack a robust study design or implementation evaluation that can inform generalizability and further dissemination. Aligning the work of health care systems and health services and outcomes researchers could serve as a strategy to overcome persisting gaps in cardiovascular quality and outcomes. We describe the inception of the Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium that seeks to rapidly improve cardiovascular care by (1) developing, implementing, and evaluating multicenter quality improvement projects using innovative care designs; (2) serving as a resource for quality improvement and care innovation partners; and (3) establishing a presence within existing quality improvement and care innovation structures. Success of the collaborative will be defined by projects that result in changes to care delivery with demonstrable impacts on the quality and outcomes of care across multiple health systems. Furthermore, insights gained from implementation of these projects across sites in Cardiovascular Quality Improvement and Care Innovation Consortium will inform and promote broad dissemination for greater impact.

Hospital performance, the local economy, and the local workforce: findings from a US National Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Pay-for-performance is an increasingly popular approach to improving health care quality, and the US government will soon implement pay-for-performance in hospitals nationwide. Yet hospital capacity to perform (and improve performance) likely depends on local resources. In this study, we quantify the association between hospital performance and local economic and human resources, and describe possible implications of pay-for-performance for socioeconomic equity. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We applied county-level measures of local economic and workforce resources to a national sample of US hospitals (n = 2,705), during the period 2004-2007. We analyzed performance for two common cardiac conditions (acute myocardial infarction [AMI] and heart failure [HF]), using process-of-care measures from the Hospital Quality Alliance [HQA], and isolated temporal trends and the contributions of individual resource dimensions on performance, using multivariable mixed models. Performance scores were translated into net scores for hospitals using the Performance Assessment Model, which has been suggested as a basis for reimbursement under Medicare's "Value-Based Purchasing" program. Our analyses showed that hospital performance is substantially associated with local economic and workforce resources. For example, for HF in 2004, hospitals located in counties with longstanding poverty had mean HQA composite scores of 73.0, compared with a mean of 84.1 for hospitals in counties without longstanding poverty (p<0.001). Hospitals located in counties in the lowest quartile with respect to college graduates in the workforce had mean HQA composite scores of 76.7, compared with a mean of 86.2 for hospitals in the highest quartile (p<0.001). Performance on AMI measures showed similar patterns. Performance improved generally over the study period. Nevertheless, by 2007--4 years after public reporting began--hospitals in locationally disadvantaged areas still lagged behind their locationally advantaged counterparts. This lag translated into substantially lower net scores under the Performance Assessment Model for hospital reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital performance on clinical process measures is associated with the quantity and quality of local economic and human resources. Medicare's hospital pay-for-performance program may exacerbate inequalities across regions, if implemented as currently proposed. Policymakers in the US and beyond may need to take into consideration the balance between greater efficiency through pay-for-performance and socioeconomic equity.

Maximizing Performance in Medicare's Merit Based Incentive Payment System: A Financial Model to Optimize Health Information Technology Resource Allocation.

Participation in the Medicare Quality Payment Program's Merit Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) has forced many healthcare administrators to strategize how to achieve success under value-based payment systems. A financial model was constructed to determine the marginal utility of compliance with various MIPS measures. Solo, small, medium, large, and very large practices were modeled using available data and final rules published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The model analysis found that small groups were generally incentivized not to comply with MIPS measures. Conversely, larger organizations were found to have strong financial incentives to maximize pursuit of MIPS measures. Incentives to pursue interoperability investments were projected to be generally under $10 200 for small organizations but approximately $690 000 for very large practices whereas the health information technology (IT) resources necessary to pursue these measures may not have nearly the same range of costs. In light of these findings, small groups may be driven to join larger groups as large groups continue to capitalize on their larger incentives to pursue MIPS measures. As financial success under MIPS is dependent on scale, healthcare systems that pursue consolidation may achieve greater success under quality payment programs similar to MIPS which include the newly proposed MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs).