Disparities in virtual cardiology visits among Veterans Health Administration patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) rapidly expanded virtual care (defined as care delivered by video and phone), raising concerns about technology access disparities (ie, the digital divide). Virtual care was somewhat established in primary care and mental health care prepandemic, but video telehealth implementation was new for most subspecialties, including cardiology. We sought to identify patient characteristics of virtual and video-based care users in VA cardiology clinics nationally during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: Cohort study of Veteran patients across all VA facilities with a cardiology visit January 1, 2019-March 10, 2020, with follow-up January 1, 2019-March 10, 2021. Main measures included cardiology visits by visit type and likelihood of receiving cardiology-related virtual care, calculated with a repeated event survival model. Results: 416 587 Veterans with 1 689 595 total cardiology visits were analyzed; average patient age was 69.6 years and 4.3% were female. Virtual cardiology care expanded dramatically early in the COVID-19 pandemic from 5% to 70% of encounters. Older, lower-income, and rural-dwelling Veterans and those experiencing homelessness were less likely to use video care (adjusted hazard ratio for ages 75 and older 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.86; for highly rural residents 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87; for low-income status 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; for homeless Veterans 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.92). Conclusion: The pandemic worsened the digital divide for cardiology care for many vulnerable patients to the extent that video visits represent added value over phone visits. Targeted interventions may be necessary for equity in COVID-19-era access to virtual cardiology care.

Medical therapy for patients with recent-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from the Veteran's affairs healthcare system.

This study aims to evaluate trends in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with recent-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic using an interrupted time series analysis in the Veteran's Affairs Healthcare System. Among 71,428 patients with recent-onset HFrEF between 1/1/2018 and 2/28/2021, we found the pandemic was not associated with differences in treatment rates for beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; there was a 2.6 % absolute decrease (95 % CI: 0.5 %-4.7 %) in ARNI rates in April 2020; which decreased over the pandemic. Despite the changes to healthcare delivery, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with minimal changes in GDMT rates among patients with recent-onset HFrEF.

Economic Issues in Heart Failure in the United States.

The cost of heart failure care is high owing to the cost of hospitalization and chronic treatments. Heart failure treatments vary in their benefit and cost. The cost effectiveness of therapies can be determined by comparing the cost of treatment required to obtain a certain benefit, often defined as an increase in 1 year of life. This review was sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America and describes the growing economic burden of heart failure for patients and the health care system in the United States. It also provides a summary of the cost effectiveness of drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, hospital care, and transitions of care for patients with heart failure. Many medications that are no longer under patent are inexpensive and highly cost-effective. These include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. In contrast, more recently developed medications and devices, vary in cost effectiveness, and often have high out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Changes in telemedicine use and ambulatory visit volumes at a multispecialty cardiovascular center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiology clinics rapidly implemented telemedicine to maintain access to care. Little is known about subsequent trends in telemedicine use and visit volumes across cardiology subspecialties. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients with ambulatory visits at a multispecialty cardiovascular center in Northern California from March 2019 to February 2020 (pre-COVID) and March 2020 to February 2021 (COVID). Telemedicine use increased from 3.5% of visits (1200/33,976) during the pre-COVID period to 63.0% (21,251/33,706) during the COVID period. Visit volumes were below pre-COVID levels from March to May 2020 but exceeded pre-COVID levels after June 2020, including when local COVID-19 cases peaked. Telemedicine use was above 75% of visits in all cardiology subspecialties in April 2020 and stabilized at rates ranging from over 95% in electrophysiology to under 25% in heart transplant and vascular medicine. From June 2020 to February 2021, subspecialties delivering a greater percentage of visits through telemedicine experienced larger increases in new patient visits (r = 0.81, p = 0.029). Telemedicine can be used to deliver a significant proportion of outpatient cardiovascular care though utilization varies across subspecialties. Higher rates of telemedicine adoption may increase access to care in cardiology clinics.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis from the veteran's affairs healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system. METHODS: We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values. RESULTS: Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion. RESULTS: Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.