Enriching the American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry Through Linkage With External Data Sources: Rationale and Design.

Background The AHA Registry (American Heart Association COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry) captures detailed information on hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The registry, however, does not capture information on social determinants of health or long-term outcomes. Here we describe the linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources, including fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare claims, to fill these gaps and assess the representativeness of linked registry patients to the broader Medicare FFS population hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods and Results We linked AHA Registry records of adults ≥65 years from March 2020 to September 2021 with Medicare FFS claims using a deterministic linkage algorithm and with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey, Rural Urban Commuting Area codes, and the Social Vulnerability Index using hospital and geographic identifiers. We compared linked individuals with unlinked FFS beneficiaries hospitalized with COVID-19 to assess the representativeness of the AHA Registry. A total of 10 010 (47.0%) records in the AHA Registry were successfully linked to FFS Medicare claims. Linked and unlinked FFS beneficiaries were similar with respect to mean age (78.1 versus 77.9, absolute standardized difference [ASD] 0.03); female sex (48.3% versus 50.2%, ASD 0.04); Black race (15.1% versus 12.0%, ASD 0.09); dual-eligibility status (26.1% versus 23.2%, ASD 0.07); and comorbidity burden. Linked patients were more likely to live in the northeastern United States (35.7% versus 18.2%, ASD 0.40) and urban/metropolitan areas (83.9% versus 76.8%, ASD 0.18). There were also differences in hospital-level characteristics between cohorts. However, in-hospital outcomes were similar (mortality, 23.3% versus 20.1%, ASD 0.08; home discharge, 45.5% versus 50.7%, ASD 0.10; skilled nursing facility discharge, 24.4% versus 22.2%, ASD 0.05). Conclusions Linkage of the AHA Registry with external data sources such as Medicare FFS claims creates a unique and generalizable resource to evaluate long-term health outcomes after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Beyond the stethoscope: managing ambulatory heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic.

There have been nearly 70 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide, with over 1.5 million deaths at the time of this publication. This global pandemic has mandated dramatic changes in healthcare delivery with a particular focus on social distancing in order to reduce viral transmission. Heart failure patients are among the highest utilizers of health care and are at increased risk for COVID-related vulnerabilities. Effectively managing this complex and resource-intensive patient population from a distance presents new and unique challenges. Here, we review relevant data on telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies for heart failure patients and provide a framework to help providers treat this population during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes (i) dedicated pre-visit contact and planning (i.e. confirm clinical appropriateness, presence of compatible technology, and patient comfort); (ii) utilization of virtual clinic visits (use of telehealth platforms, a video-assisted exam, self-reported vital signs, and weights); and (iii) use of existing remote heart failure monitoring sensors when applicable (CardioMEMS, Optivol, and HeartLogic). While telemedicine and remote monitoring strategies are not new, these technologies are emerging as an important tool for the effective management of heart failure patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In general, these strategies appear to be safe; however, additional data will be needed to determine their effectiveness with respect to both process and outcomes measures.

Changes in hospital admissions for urgent conditions during COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients are deferring necessary care for urgent conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and, if so, to what extent. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Using billing data from 8 acute care hospitals, we identified 9 principal medical diagnoses from International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes across 4 medical specialties (cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, and urology). In addition, we defined a combined obstetrical falsification end point. We compared daily admission rates during the pandemic period (3/1/2020-4/30/2020) with the same dates in 2019 (3/1/2019-4/30/2019). As a reference, we also compared a prepandemic period in the same years (1/1/2019-2/28/2019 and 1/1/2020-2/29/2020). We compared admission rates between years using t tests. RESULTS: There were 3219 admissions for the conditions of interest during the study period in 2019 and 2661 in 2020. There was no difference in prepandemic daily admission rates in 2020 compared with 2019 (29.04 vs 27.63 admissions per day; -4.9%; P = .50). During the pandemic period, there was a 33.7% decrease in admission rates for all conditions combined in 2020 compared with 2019 (24.68 vs 16.37; -33.7%; P = .03). By specialty, the combined gastroenterology (10.22 vs 7.20; -29.6%; P = .02) and cardiovascular (2.34 vs 1.29; -44.7%; P = .05) end points demonstrated reduction in daily admission rates. CONCLUSIONS: Daily admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic were lower for these acute medical conditions. Public awareness campaigns are urgently needed to reassure the public about the safety of presenting for care.