Generalizable Approach to Quantifying Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) intensity is foundational for improving heart failure (HF) care. Existing measures discount dose intensity or use inconsistent weighting. METHODS: The Kansas City Medical Optimization (KCMO) score is the average of total daily to target dose percentages for eligible GDMT, reflecting the percentage of optimal GDMT prescribed (range, 0-100). In Change the Management of Patients With HF, we computed KCMO, HF collaboratory (0-7), and modified HF Collaboratory (0-100) scores for each patient at baseline and for 1-year change in established GDMT at the time (mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, ß-blocker, ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor). We compared baseline and 1-year change distributions and the coefficient of variation (SD/mean) across scores. RESULTS: Among 4532 patients at baseline, mean KCMO, HF collaboratory, and modified HF Collaboratory scores were 38.8 (SD, 25.7), 3.4 (1.7), and 42.2 (22.2), respectively. The mean 1-year change (n=4061) for KCMO was -1.94 (17.8); HF collaborator, -0.11 (1.32); and modified HF Collaboratory, -1.35 (19.8). KCMO had the highest coefficient of variation (0.66), indicating greater variability around the mean than the HF collaboratory (0.49) and modified HF Collaboratory (0.53) scores, reflecting higher resolution of the variability in GDMT intensity across patients. CONCLUSIONS: KCMO measures GDMT intensity by incorporating dosing and treatment eligibility, provides more granularity than existing methods, is easily interpretable (percentage of ideal GDMT), and can be adapted as performance measures evolve. Further study of its association with outcomes and its usefulness for quality assessment and improvement is needed.

Discontinuation of Oral Anticoagulants in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Impact of Treatment Strategy and on Patients' Health Status.

AIMS: The discontinuation of oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains as a significant concern in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The discontinuation rate may vary depending on management strategy, and physicians may also discontinue OACs due to concerns about patient satisfaction with their care. We aimed to assess the incidence of OAC discontinuation and its relationship to patients' health in an outpatient AF registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: From a multicenter registry for newly recognized AF patients (n = 3313), we extracted 1647 (49.7%) patients with OACs and a CHA2DS2-Vasc score of ≥2. Discontinuation was defined as sustained cessation of OACs within a 1-year follow-up. We examined predictors associated with discontinuation and its relations to health status defined by the AFEQT questionnaire. Of the 1647 patients, 385 (23.6%) discontinued OACs after 1 year, with discontinuation rates varying across treatment strategies (15.3% for catheter ablation, 4.9% for rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs, and 3.0% for rate control). Successful rhythm control was associated with discontinuation in the catheter ablation (OR 6.61, 95% CI 3.00-14.6, p < 0.001) and antiarrhythmic drugs (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.62-15.9, p < 0.001) groups, whereas the incidence of bleeding events within 1 year was associated with discontinuation in the rate control group. One-year AFEQT scores did not significantly differ between patients who discontinued OACs and those who did not in each treatment strategy group. CONCLUSIONS: OAC discontinuation was common among AF patients with significant stroke risk but varied depending on the chosen treatment strategy. This study also found no significant association between OAC discontinuation and patients' health status.

PRECISE-DAPT and ARC-HBR Predict in-Hospital Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Bleeding events result in morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data on the predicting bleeding complications in patients who underwent stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) and Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) scores' ability to predict in-hospital outcomes in patients who underwent PCI. Consecutive patients who underwent PCI at tertiary centers from January 2016 to March 2018 were identified and the bleeding risk scores were calculated. The primary end point was the National Cardiovascular Data Registry-defined in-hospital bleeding stratified by low versus high predicted bleeding risk. The major and net adverse cardiovascular events were also examined. The discriminatory ability of the risk models was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Among 3,659 patients studied, the in-hospital major bleeding was 3.3% (n = 121). The patients characterized as high bleeding risk by either criterion had significantly higher bleeding rates than those meeting the low-risk criteria (ARC-HBR 5.4% vs 3.3%, p <0.001; PRECISE-DAPT 5.8% vs 2.4%, p <0.001), and higher major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events. These risk estimates showed moderate and similar predictive ability (ARC-HBR high-risk area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0.62, PRECISE-DAPT ≥25 AUC 0.61, p = 0.49), with no incremental benefit to adding the estimates (AUC 0.60). The subgroup analysis revealed that women had higher bleeding rates than men (5.53% vs 2.39%, p <0.001); however, the predictive ability of the criteria were similar in women and men. The patients identified as having a high bleeding risk by the PRECISE-DAPT and the ARC-HBR criteria before PCI are at high risk for in-hospital bleeding and adverse outcomes independent of gender. The 2 scores have moderate predictive ability for bleeds. Further study is needed to determine strategies to reduce risk in this population.

Preadmission Statin Treatment and Outcome in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Preadmission statin therapy is associated with improved outcome in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Whether inhibition of inflammation and myocardial injury are in part responsible for this observation has not been studied. The aim of the present study was to relate preadmission statin usage to markers of inflammation, myocardial injury, and clinical outcome among patients with established atherosclerosis who were admitted with COVID-19. Adult patients with a diagnosis of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, and/or atherosclerotic cerebrovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 were included. Statin use was related to the primary composite clinical outcome, death, intensive care unit admission, or thrombotic complications in sequential multivariable logistic regression models. Of 3,584 adult patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19, 1,360 patients met study inclusion criteria (mean age 73.8 years, 45% women, 68% White). Baseline troponin and C-reactive protein were lower in patients on statins before admission. In an unadjusted model, preadmission statin usage was associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome (42.2% vs 53.7%, odds ratio 0.63 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.80], p <0.001). This association remained significant after age, gender, ethnicity, other patient clinical characteristics, and cardiovascular medications were added to the model but became null when troponin and C-reactive protein were also included (odds ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.09] p = 0.18). In conclusion, among patients with established cardiovascular disease who were hospitalized with COVID-19, preadmission statin therapy was associated with improved in-hospital outcome, an association that was negated once inflammation and myocardial injury were considered.