An Analysis of Telehealth in the Outpatient Management of Atrial Fibrillation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adaption of a telehealth care model. We studied the impact of telehealth on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) by electrophysiology providers in a large, multisite clinic. Clinical outcomes, quality metrics, and indicators of clinical activity for patients with AF during the 10-week period of March 22, 2020 to May 30, 2020 were compared with those from the 10-week period of March 24, 2019 to June 1, 2019. There were 1946 unique patient visits for AF (1,040 in 2020 and 906 in 2019). During 120 days after each encounter, there was no difference in hospital admissions (11.7% vs 13.5%, p = 0.25) or emergency department visits (10.4% vs 12.5%, p = 0.15) in 2020 compared with 2019. There was a total of 31 deaths within 120 days, with similar rates in 2020 and 2019 (1.8% vs 1.3%, p = 0.38). There was no significant difference in quality metrics. The following clinical activities occurred less frequently in 2020 than in 2019: offering escalation of rhythm control (16.3% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), ambulatory monitoring (29.7% vs 51.7%, p <0.001), and electrocardiogram review for patients on antiarrhythmic drug therapy (22.1% vs 90.2%, p <0.001). Discussions about risk factor modification were more frequent in 2020 compared with 2019 (87.9% vs 74.8%, p <0.001). In conclusion, the use of telehealth in the outpatient management of AF was associated with similar clinical outcomes and quality metrics but differences in clinical activity compared with traditional ambulatory encounters. Longer-term outcomes warrant further investigation.

Site-level variability in the processes of care and outcomes over time among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury: Insights from the American Heart Association's COVID-19 Cardiovascular Disease Registry.

Background: Elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels in patients with COVID-19 has been associated with worse outcomes. Guidelines on best practices of those patients remain uncertain. Methods: We included patients with COVID-19 and cTn above the assay-specific upper limit of normal (ULN) enrolled in the American Heart Association's COVID-19 registry between March 2020-January 2021. Site-level variability in invasive coronary angiography, LVEF assessment, ICU utilization, and inpatient mortality were determined by calculating adjusted median odds ratio (MOR) using hierarchical logistic regression models. Temporal trends were assessed with Cochran-Armitage trend test. Results: Among 32,636 patients, we included 6234 (19.4 %) with cTn above ULN (age 68.7 ± 16.0 years, 56.5 % male, 51.5 % Caucasian), of whom 1365 (21.6 %) had ≥5-fold elevations. Across 55 sites, the median rate of invasive coronary angiography was 0.1 % with adjusted MOR 1.5(1.0,2.3), median LVEF assessment was 25.5 %, MOR 3.0(2.2,3.9), ICU utilization was 41.7 %, MOR 2.2(1.8,2.6), and mortality was 20.9 %, MOR 1.7(1.5,2.0). Over time, we noted a significant increase in invasive coronary angiography (p-trend = 0.001), and LVEF assessment (p-trend<0.001), and reduction in mortality (p-trend<0.001), without significant change in ICU admissions (p-trend = 0.08). Similar variability and temporal trends were seen among patients with ≥5-fold cTn elevation. Conclusions: The use of invasive coronary angiography among patients with COVID-19 and myocardial injury was very low during the early pandemic. We found moderate institutional variability in processes of care with an uptrend in invasive catheterization and LVEF assessment, and downtrend in mortality. Comparative effectiveness studies are needed to examine whether variability in care is associated with differences in outcomes.

Outpatient Management of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure Using Telehealth: A Comparison of In-Office, Video, and Telephone Visits.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data regarding the management of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with virtual visits in comparison with in-office visits. We sought to compare the changes in GDMT (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) and loop diuretics across visit types. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study included 13,481 outpatient visits performed for 5439 unique patients with HFrEF between March 16, 2020, and March 15, 2021. The rates of initiation and discontinuation of GDMT were documented, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to test associations with outcomes between modes of visit. The rates of medication initiation were higher in office (11.7%) compared with video (9.6%) or telephone (7.2%) visits. In multivariable adjusted analysis, the initiation of at least 1 GDMT class was similar between in-office visits and video visits (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-1.14, P = .703). Telephone visits were associated with less frequent initiation of at least 1 class of GDMT in comparison with in-office visits (adjusted OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55-0.75; P < .001) and video visits (adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55-0.81, P < .001). Despite similar rates of baseline loop diuretic use, patients seen with both video visits (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94, P = .018) and telephone visits (adjusted OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.83, P < .001) were less likely to have a loop diuretic initiated when compared with in-office visits. CONCLUSIONS: The initiation of GDMT for HFrEF was similar between in-office and video visits and lower with telephone visits, whereas the initiation of a loop diuretic was less frequent in both types of virtual visits. These data suggest that video streaming capabilities should be encouraged for virtual visits.

Outpatient Management of Heart Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic After Adoption of a Telehealth Model.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether the increased use of telehealth was associated with a difference in outcomes for outpatients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to dramatic changes in the delivery of outpatient care. It is unclear whether increased use of telehealth affected outcomes for outpatients with heart failure. METHODS: In March 2020, a large Midwestern health care system, encompassing 16 cardiology clinics, 16 emergency departments, and 12 hospitals, initiated a telehealth-based model for outpatient care in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. A propensity-matched analysis was performed to compare outcomes between outpatients seen in-person in 2018 and 2019 and via telemedicine in 2020. RESULTS: Among 8,263 unique patients with heart failure with 15,421 clinic visits seen from March 15 to June 15, telehealth was employed in 88.5% of 2020 visits but in none in 2018 or 2019. Despite the pandemic, more outpatients were seen in 2020 (n = 5,224) versus 2018 and 2019 (n = 5,099 per year). Using propensity matching, 4,541 telehealth visits in 2020 were compared with 4,541 in-person visits in 2018 and 2019, and groups were well matched. Mortality was similar for telehealth and in-person visits at both 30 days (0.8% vs 0.7%) and 90 days (2.9% vs 2.4%). Likewise, there was no excess in hospital encounters or need for intensive care with telehealth visits. CONCLUSIONS: A telehealth model for outpatients with heart failure allowed for distanced encounters without increases in subsequent acute care or mortality. As the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic abate, these data suggest that telehealth outpatient visits in patients with heart failure can be safely incorporated into clinical practice.