Peterson, Eric D.

BACKGROUND: While health systems have implemented resources to improve lipid management in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the population-level effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: Electronic health record data from patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, across 16 US academic health systems were analyzed. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined by diagnosis and procedure codes) was established on or before the index date defined as the date of the most recent LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) or the last day of the study period for those without an LDL-C available. Systems were surveyed to identify lipid management programs (eg, prevention/lipid clinic, electronic health record–based tools, and lipid management algorithms). Sequential multilevel multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to (1) assess the system-level association between an LDL-C <70 mg/dL and the presence of lipid management programs, adjusting for patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics, and (2) whether system-level uptake of statin or nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. RESULTS: We included 1 738 042 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (median, 88 365 per system; range, 17 086–2 48 371). About 81% of the health systems had prevention or lipid clinics. The proportion of those on statins ranged from 31.0% to 60.4% across health systems (median, 46.3%). Lower proportions were observed in the use of high-intensity statins (16.2%–33.1%), nonstatins (2.6%–8.1%), and combination lipid-lowering therapy (1.7%–6.3%). Among those with an LDL-C level available (n=890 521), 42.5% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, ranging 35.8% to 49.4% across systems. There was no association between the odds of achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL and health system lipid management algorithm, prevention clinics/lipid clinics, or electronic health record–based tools. Neither system-level high-intensity statin utilization nor nonstatin use was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in lipid management resources and lipid-lowering therapy use across systems, many did not reach an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and there was low uptake of lipid-lowering therapy. Innovative implementation strategies are needed for system-level lipid management.

Background: Nationally, many ASCVD patients fail to achieve an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and uptake of both statin and non-statin therapies is low. The degree to which this varies across health systems is less clear. Methods: A cross sectional analysis was performed where lipid levels and lipid lowering therapies (LLT) were assessed using electronic health record data in patients with a previous diagnosis of ASCVD. The data was obtained across 14 US healthcare systems between 1/1/2021-12/31/2022. Proportions of patients with an active prescription of any statin, high intensity statin, ezetimibe, PCSK9i, and combination therapy (two or more agents) within 395 days of the most recent LDL-C value (index date) was evaluated overall and by participating site. Additionally, the proportion of patients with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at the index date was also assessed. Results: Across 14 health systems, 1,118,623 patients with ASCVD were identified (median 61,840 per health system, range 8,161-182,315). Overall, 675,776 (60.4%) had an LDL-C level in the past year (range 39.1% - 70.8%). Of those with a lipid level, achievement of LDL-C <70 mg/dL ranged from 34.6-47.2%. In total, 42.6% were on any statin, 20.1% were on a high intensity statin, 4.3% on ezetimibe, and 1.2% on a PCSK9i. Only 2.9% were on combination therapy of a statin with ezetimibe or a PCSK9i. Variability was seen across health systems in utilization of each of these therapies, however even in the highest performing health systems, LLT uptake and achievement of LDL-C < 70mg/dL remained low ( Figure). Conclusion: Variability in utilization of LLT in ASCVD patients between health systems suggests that system-level factors may impact achieving guideline-based LDL-C goals. Despite the variability, the highest proportion of patients achieving an LDL-C <70mg/dL remained under 50% indicating the need for aggressive implementation efforts.

Introduction: Guidelines are increasingly recommending a goal LDL-C <55 mg/dL in persons with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The proportion and characteristics of US adults with ASCVD with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL remains unclear. Aims: To evaluate lipid management in ASCVD patients and factors associated with achieving an LDL-C <55mg/dL. Methods: Using electronic health record data from 8 US health systems, we evaluated LDL-C levels and treatment patterns in persons with prevalent ASCVD seen as outpatients between 1/1/2021-12/31/2021 with an LDL-C level within the prior year. Multivariable logistic regression modeling with generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate factors associated with an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Results: Among 178,240 eligible ASCVD patients, 43.5% (77,472) had an LDL- C <70 mg/dL and 22.0% (39,270) had an LDL-C <55 mg/dL. Older age was associated with higher odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL (OR 1.10 per 10 years, 95% CI 1.07-1.13), while female sex (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.68-0.64) Black race (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.86), and non-coronary artery disease forms of ASCVD including peripheral artery disease (PAD, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.58-0.64) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD, OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.79) were associated with lower odds of LDL-C <55 mg/dL in multivariable modeling. Overall, while 75.0% were on a statin, only 36.9% were on a high-intensity statin, 5.7% were on ezetimibe, and 1.7% were on a PCSK9i. Combination therapy was rare: only 4.2% were on a statin+ezetimibe, 0.5% on statin+PCSK9i, and 0.3% on all three. Conclusions: Less than a quarter of US patients with ASCVD achieve an LDL <55 mg/dL. Achieving this goal is even less common among younger adults, women, Black persons, and those with PAD and CeVD. Current therapeutic regimens often fail to use high-intensity statins, and markedly underutilize combinations of statins with ezetimibe and/or PCSK9 inhibitors.

AbstractBackgroundAn unmet need exists to reliably predict the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs).HypothesisAn externally validated model improves ICH risk stratification.MethodsIndependent factors associated with ICH were identified by Cox proportional hazard modeling, using pooled data from the GARFIELD‐AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD‐Atrial Fibrillation) and ORBIT‐AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registries. A predictive model was developed and validated by bootstrap sampling and by independent data from the Danish National Patient Register.ResultsIn the combined training data set, 284 of 53 878 anticoagulated patients had ICH over a 2‐year period (0.31 per 100 person‐years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28–0.35). Independent predictors of ICH included: older age, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, concomitant antiplatelet (AP) use, and moderate‐to‐severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were associated with a significantly higher risk of ICH compared with non‐VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.25–2.08; p = .0002). The ability of the model to discriminate individuals in the training set with and without ICH was fair (optimism‐corrected C‐statistic: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.65–0.71) and outperformed three previously published methods. Calibration between predicted and observed ICH probabilities was good in both training and validation data sets.ConclusionsAge, prior ischemic events, concomitant AP therapy, and CKD were important risk factors for ICH in anticoagulated AF patients. Moreover, ICH was more frequent in patients receiving VKA compared to NOAC. The new validated model is a step toward mitigating this potentially lethal complication.

Introduction: Higher body mass index (BMI) is an independent risk factor for incident atrial fibrillation (AF). However, its impact on management strategies and clinical outcomes among patients with prevalent AF is unclear. Methods: The study cohort included patients with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry from June 2010 through August 2011. Participants with BMI > 18.5 kg/m2 were stratified into normal (18.5 - 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 - 30 kg/m2), Class I obese (30 - 35 kg/m2), Class II obese (35 - 40 kg/m2), and Class III obese (>40 kg/m2) categories. Unadjusted and adjusted Cox frailty models were constructed to assess the categorical and continuous association of BMI with AF progression, mortality, and incidence of thromboembolic events. Results: We evaluated 9,606 patients with AF (mean age: 74 + 11 years; 42% women) from 174 US ORBIT participating practices. Patients in the higher BMI categories were younger and had a higher prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea. AF symptom burden was greatest among patients in extreme BMI categories. Proportional use of anticoagulation, antiarrhythmic drugs, and invasive rhythm control strategies was significantly greater among patients in higher BMI categories. Rates for mortality and stroke/non-CNS embolism decreased in a near linear fashion across successively higher BMI categories (P<0.001; Table). After multivariable adjustment, higher BMI categories were associated with lower risk for mortality (p = 0.0002), with the lowest risk observed among overweight patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) (95% CI): 0.65 (0.54 - 0.79) ref. group: normal weight]. For every 5-kg/m2 increase in BMI, the odds of risk-adjusted mortality were 6% lower [HR (95% CI): 0.94 (0.89 - 0.98)]. In contrast, the association between BMI and risk for stroke/non-CNS embolism was significant on unadjusted analysis (P <0.001) but attenuated after adjustment for risk factors (P = 0.78; Table). No significant association was observed between BMI and AF progression rates in either unadjusted (P = 0.35) or adjusted analyses (P = 0.17). Conclusion: Among patients with AF, higher BMI was associated with a greater use of anticoagulation, rhythm control strategies, and lower mortality risk.

Background: Interruption of OAC is often required for invasive procedures, yet the frequency, management, and outcomes of temporary interruptions (TIs) in community practice are unknown. Methods: We assessed the frequency and reasons for TI in outpatients with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF). Patient characteristics and use of bridging anticoagulants were analyzed. Endpoints included periprocedural adverse events (bleeding, thrombotic, or other) and cause-specific hospitalization within 30 days after TI. Results: Overall 7,372 patients were treated with OAC at baseline; 30% (n=2200) required at least 1 TI during median follow-up of 1 year. Patients requiring TI were similar in age (mean age 74 for both) and CHADS2 scores (mean 2.4 for both) to those not requiring TI. Among 3104 interruptions, the most commonly-identified reasons were for non-cardiac surgery (n=827, 27%), followed by endoscopic procedures (n=551, 18%) and cardiac catheterization (n=308, 10%). Bridging anticoagulants were used in 23% (n=709) of interruptions, including low-molecular weight heparin (n=512) or unfractionated heparin (n=109). Rates of bridging were highest during cardiac surgery (44%), cardiac catheterization (32%), and catheter ablation (33%). Patients with a prior stroke or TIA were significantly more likely to receive bridging (35% vs. 25%, p=0.0003), however there was no difference between patients with CHADS2 score >=2 vs. 0-1 (27% vs. 25%, p=NS). Adverse events during interruption were more common in bridged patients (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p=0.02), including bleeding events (3.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.02); thrombotic events were uncommon (0.7 [n=4] vs. 0.5% [n=10], p=NS). After interruption, adverse events occurred early in follow-up (Figure), and bridged patients were more likely to experience any adverse event (13% vs. 6.3%, p<0.0001), cardiovascular hospitalization (4.3% vs. 2.3%, p=0.02), and bleeding hospitalization (2.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.002) within 30 days. Conclusions: Temporary interruptions are common in patients receiving OAC for AF, however, bridging anticoagulation is used in a minority. Bleeding events following TI occurred significantly more often in patients receiving bridging anticoagulation.

Background: Dabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant approved in October 2010 for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF), yet patterns of adoption of this novel agent in clinical practice are unknown. Methods: Using the ORBIT-AF Registry, a national outpatient prospective AF registry involving 170 sites, we examined patterns of those switching to dabigatran from warfarin from 2010 to 2012. Results: Of 7,066 patients with AF receiving warfarin at baseline, 511 (7%) were switched to dabigatran during follow-up. Patients switched to dabigatran were younger (median age 73 vs. 76, p<0.0001), more likely to be White (94% vs. 89%, p=0.001), and had better kidney function (median creatinine clearance (CrCl) 77 mL/min vs. 69 mL/min, p<0.0001), but less likely to have a history of anemia, (14% vs. 18%, p=0.009) or history of any cerebrovascular disease (14% vs. 17%, p=0.04) or CAD (22% vs. 34%, p<0.0001) or be followed in an anticoagulation clinic (36% vs. 45%, p<0.0001). Patients switched to dabigatran were more likely to have been recently diagnosed with AF (5.3% vs. 3.0%, p=0.03), and their CHADS 2 scores were significantly lower (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients receiving warfarin who were switched to dabigatran were younger, with lower CHADS 2 scores, better kidney function, and less concomitant cardiovascular disease than those not switched. This conservative transition pattern suggests greater physician emphasis on bleeding avoidance than on stroke risk reduction.

Background. Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic events associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), yet a substantial proportion of patients with AF are not prescribed OAC. The frequencies of and factors associated with contraindications to OAC therapy in clinical practice are not well-described. Methods. We used data from the ORBIT-AF study, a national, prospective, outpatient registry of incident and prevalent AF. OAC contraindications were uniformly collected at study enrollment by site personnel. Patient and provider characteristics were compared between participants with documented OAC contraindications at baseline and those without OAC contraindications. Results. From June 2010 to August 2011, 10124 patients ≥18 years old with electrocardiographically documented AF were enrolled at 176 practices. Of these, 1409 (13.9%) had OAC contraindications documented at the baseline visit: prior bleed (26.2%), patient refusal/preference (26.0%), high bleeding risk (22.6%), frequent falls/frailty (16.6%), other (11.9%), need for dual antiplatelet therapy (9.8%), unable to adhere/monitor warfarin (5.7%), comorbid illness (5.0%), prior intracranial hemorrhage (4.7%), allergy (2.3%), occupational risk (0.8%), and pregnancy (0.2%). Compared to patients without contraindications, those with contraindications had higher stroke risk (CHADS2>2) and were older, more likely to be female, more likely to be seen by a cardiologist and less likely to be seen by an electrophysiologist (Table 1). Among those patients with reported contraindications, 28.4% were taking warfarin. Conclusions. Contraindications to OAC therapy among AF patients are common and often due to high bleeding risk. Furthermore, many patients with reported contraindications are taking warfarin, suggesting that many contraindications to warfarin therapy are minor, relative, or temporary.

Introduction: Randomized trials have not demonstrated significant differences in stroke, heart failure or mortality between rhythm and rate control strategies for management of atrial fibrillation (AF). The comparative outcomes in contemporary clinical practice are not well described. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in clinical practice with rhythm control versus rate control strategy. Methods: Patients managed with a rhythm control strategy targeting maintenance of sinus rhythm were retrospectively compared with a strategy of rate control alone in a AF registry across various US practice settings. Unadjusted and adjusted (inverse-propensity weighted) outcomes were estimated. Results: The overall study population (n=6988) had a median age of 74 (25th, 75th percentile 65, 81) years, 56% were males, 77% had first detected or paroxysmal AF and 89% had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. In unadjusted analyses, rhythm control was associated with lower all-cause death, cardiovascular death, first stroke/non-central nervous system systemic embolization/transient ischemic attack, or first major bleeding event (all p<0.05); however, rhythm control was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10-1.39, p=0.0003; Figure). Conclusion: Among patients with AF in clinical practice, rhythm control was not superior to rate control strategy for outcomes of stroke, heart failure, or mortality, but was associated with more cardiovascular hospitalizations.

Background: The 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines departed from prior ATPIII guidelines, recommending statin treatment based on patients’ predicted 10-year ASCVD risk and de-emphasizing LDL-C targets. However, the degree to which these new guidelines have been adopted by clinicians in community practice is unknown. Methods: We surveyed 522 clinicians in 133 cardiology, primary care, and endocrinology practices participating in the Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management (PALM) Registry. Clinicians were asked about their likelihood of prescribing statins in 4 hypothetical patient scenarios. Results: Among responders, 79% were physicians (60% cardiologists, 38% primary care or general practice, 2% endocrinology), 18% were advanced practice providers, and 3% trainees. When queried, 73% of providers reported primarily using the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines to guide lipid management. However, only half reported “often” or “always” calculating 10-year ASCVD risk to aid lipid management decisions for primary prevention. When presented with a high 10-year ASCVD risk patient (>15%) with a high LDL-C (150 mg/dL), 92% of providers recommended statins. Similarly, 83% of providers would use statins in a diabetic patient with a LDL-C of 140 mg/dL. Yet, only 37% reported they would prescribe a statin to an older adult (age 70) for whom guidelines recommend statin based on high 10-year ASCVD risk alone (10.1%). And up to 40% would prescribe a statin to a younger (age 40) with a low 10-year risk, but a high LDL (165 mg/dL) who would not otherwise meet criteria for statin therapy under the new guidelines. Cardiologists and non-cardiologists were similarly likely prescribe statins in most scenarios with the exception of to the younger patient with elevated LDL-C were cardiologists used statins more commonly (32% vs. 42%. OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p=0.02). Conclusion: Initial survey results show that while most clinicians claim adoption of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines, reported practices are not always adherent to these guidelines. Providers do not always calculate 10-year ASCVD risk to guide lipid management and many do not prescribe statins to patients eligible based on 10-year ASCVD risk.