Does early detection of atrial fibrillation reduce the risk of thromboembolic events? Rationale and design of the Heartline study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of using direct-to-consumer wearable devices as a means to timely detect atrial fibrillation (AF) and to improve clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Heartline is a pragmatic, randomized, and decentralized application-based trial of US participants aged ≥65 years. Two randomized cohorts include adults with possession of an iPhone and without a history of AF and those with a diagnosis of AF taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for ≥30 days. Participants within each cohort are randomized (3:1) to either a core digital engagement program (CDEP) via iPhone application (Heartline application) and an Apple Watch (Apple Watch Group) or CDEP alone (iPhone-only Group). The Apple Watch Group has the watch irregular rhythm notification (IRN) feature enabled and access to the ECG application on the Apple Watch. If an IRN notification is issued for suspected AF then the study application instructs participants in the Apple Watch Group to seek medical care. All participants were "watch-naïve" at time of enrollment and have an option to either buy or loan an Apple Watch as part of this study. The primary end point is time from randomization to clinical diagnosis of AF, with confirmation by health care claims. Key secondary endpoint are claims-based incidence of a 6-component composite cardiovascular/systemic embolism/mortality event, DOAC medication use and adherence, costs/health resource utilization, and frequency of hospitalizations for bleeding. All study assessments, including patient-reported outcomes, are conducted through the study application. The target study enrollment is approximately 28,000 participants in total; at time of manuscript submission, a total of 26,485 participants have been enrolled into the study. CONCLUSION: The Heartline Study will assess if an Apple Watch with the IRN and ECG application, along with application-facilitated digital health engagement modules, improves time to AF diagnosis and cardiovascular outcomes in a real-world environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276441.

Using EHR data to identify coronavirus infections in hospitalized patients: Impact of case definitions on disease surveillance.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the number, characteristics, and outcomes of patients identified hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using two different case definitions. PROCEDURES: Electronic Health Record data were evaluated from patients hospitalized with COVID-19 through May 2020 at 52 health systems across the United States. Characteristics of inpatients with positive laboratory tests for SARS-CoV-2 were compared with those with clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 but without a confirmatory lab result. FINDINGS: Of 14,371 inpatients with COVID-19, 6623 (46.1 %) had a positive laboratory result, and n = 7748 (52.9 %) had only a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. Compared with clinically diagnosed cases, those with laboratory-confirmed COVID were similar in age and sex, but differed by race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Laboratory-confirmed cases were more likely to receive certain COVID-19 therapies including hydroxychloroquine, anti-IL6 agents and antivirals (p < 0.001). Those with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 had lower rates of most complications such as myocardial infarction, but higher overall mortality (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We observed a two-fold difference in the number of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 depending on whether the case definition required laboratory confirmation. Variations in case definitions also led to differences in cohort characteristics, treatments, and outcomes.

Effectiveness of Telemedicine Visits in Reducing 30-Day Readmissions Among Patients With Heart Failure During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid implementation of telemedicine into clinical practice. This study examined whether early outpatient follow-up via telemedicine is as effective as in-person visits for reducing 30-day readmissions in patients with heart failure. Methods and Results Using electronic health records from a large health system, we included patients with heart failure living in North Carolina (N=6918) who were hospitalized between March 16, 2020 and March 14, 2021. All-cause readmission within 30 days after discharge was examined using weighted logistic regression models. Overall, 7.6% (N=526) of patients received early telemedicine follow-up, 38.8% (N=2681) received early in-person follow-up, and 53.6% (N=3711) did not receive follow-up within 14 days of discharge. Compared with patients without early follow-up, those who received early follow-up were younger, were more likely to be Medicare beneficiaries, had more comorbidities, and were less likely to live in an disadvantaged neighborhood. Relative to in-person visits, those with telemedicine follow-up were of similar age, sex, and race but with generally fewer comorbidities. Overall, the 30-day readmission rate (19.0%) varied among patients who received telemedicine visits (15.0%), in-person visits (14.0%), or no follow-up (23.1%). After covariate adjustment, patients who received either telemedicine (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.44-0.72) or in-person (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45-0.60) visits were similarly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days compared with patients with no follow-up. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine visits for early follow-up increased rapidly. Patients with heart failure who received outpatient follow-up either via telemedicine or in-person had better outcomes than those who received no follow-up.

Trends of blood pressure control in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: COVID-19 altered lifestyles and disrupted routine health care. Whether blood pressure (BP) control worsened during COVID-19 is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To understand whether home BP control worsened during COVID-19 across the United States (US) . DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based analysis of home BP data from 72,706 participants enrolled in a digital health hypertension control program. Data was compared before (January 2019 to March 2020) and during (April 2020 to August 2020) COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly mean home BP readings, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were quantified before and during the pandemic. Multivariable adjustments were made for age, sex, race, region, and months enrolled. Home BP readings were also classified based on monthly averages and highest home BP readings into risk groups: Stage 2 HTN: BP> = 135 or DBP> = 85; Uncontrolled HTN: SBP> = 145 or DBP> = 95; or Severely uncontrolled HTN: SBP> = 160 or DBP> = 100). RESULTS: Overall, 72,706 participants were enrolled in a digital health hypertension program between 1/1/2019 and 8/31/2020. Compared with participants pre-COVID-19 (n = 33,440), those during COVID-19 (n = 39,266) were of similar age (mean 53.0 ± 10.7 years vs 53.3 ± 10.8 years); sex (46% vs 50.6% female) and race (29.1% vs 34.2% non-white). Relative to pre-Covid (Apr-Aug 2019) the mean monthly number of home BP readings rose during COVID-19 (Apr-Aug, 2020), from 7.3 to 9.3 per month (P < .001). During COVID-19, participants had higher monthly adjusted mean SBP (131.6 mmHg vs. 127.5 mmHg, P < .001); DBP (80.2 mmHg vs. 79.2 mmHg, P < .001); and MAP (97.4 mmHg vs. 95.3 mmHg; P < .001). Relative to the pre-pandemic period, during COVID-19 the proportion of participants with a mean monthly BP classified as uncontrolled or severely uncontrolled hypertension also rose, 15% vs 19% and 4% vs 5%, respectively CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Based on home BP readings, mean monthly BP rose modestly after COVID-19, despite increased utilization of home monitoring. Further studies are needed to examine the longitudinal effects of the pandemic on cardiovascular disease risk factors, the impact of these on long-term population health.

The impact of race and ethnicity on outcomes in 19,584 adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: At the population level, Black and Hispanic adults in the United States have increased risk of dying from COVID-19, yet whether race and ethnicity impact on risk of mortality among those hospitalized for COVID-19 is unclear. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using data on adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from the electronic health record from 52 health systems across the United States contributing data to Cerner Real World DataTM. In-hospital mortality was evaluated by race first in unadjusted analysis then sequentially adjusting for demographics and clinical characteristics using logistic regression. RESULTS: Through August 2020, 19,584 patients with median age 52 years were hospitalized with COVID-19, including n = 4,215 (21.5%) Black and n = 5,761 (29.4%) Hispanic patients. Relative to white patients, crude mortality was slightly higher in Black adults [22.7% vs 20.8%, unadjusted OR 1.12 (95% CI 1.02-1.22)]. Mortality remained higher among Black adults after adjusting for demographic factors including age, sex, date, region, and insurance status (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.27), but not after including comorbidities and body mass index (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.93-1.23). Compared with non-Hispanic patients, Hispanic patients had lower mortality both in unadjusted and adjusted models [mortality 12.7 vs 25.0%, unadjusted OR 0.44(95% CI 0.40-0.48), fully adjusted OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.59-0.86)]. DISCUSSION: In this large, multicenter, EHR-based analysis, Black adults hospitalized with COVID-19 had higher observed mortality than white patients due to a higher burden of comorbidities in Black adults. In contrast, Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lower mortality, even in fully adjusted models.

The Association of Low Molecular Weight Heparin Use and In-hospital Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) use and mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients consecutively enrolled from two major academic hospitals exclusively for COVID-19 in Wuhan, China, from January 26, 2020, to March 26, 2020. The primary outcome was adjusted in-hospital mortality in the LMWH group compared with the non-LMWH group using the propensity score. RESULTS: Overall, 525 patients with COVID-19 enrolled with a median age of 64 years (IQR 19), and 49.33% men. Among these, 120 (22.86%) were treated with LMWH. Compared with the non-LMWH group, the LMWH group was more likely to be older and male; had a history of hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), or stroke; and had more severe COVID-19 parameters such as higher inflammatory cytokines or D-dimer. Compared with non-LMWH group, LMWH group had a higher unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate (21.70% vs. 11.10%; p = 0.004), but a lower adjusted mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.46). A propensity score-weighting analysis demonstrated similar findings (adjusted OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.10-0.30). Subgroup analysis showed a significant survival benefit among those who were severely (adjusted OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.23) and critically ill (adjusted OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15-0.65), as well as among the elderly patients' age > 65, IL-6 > 10 times upper limit level, and D-dimer > 5 times upper limit level. CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, LMWH use was associated with lower all-cause in-hospital mortality than non-LMWH users. The survival benefit was particularly significant among more severely ill patients.