Fonarow, Gregg C.

Background— We explored regional variation in 30-day ischemic stroke mortality and readmission rates and the extent to which regional differences in patients, hospitals, healthcare resources, and a quality of care composite care measure explain the observed variation. Methods and Results— This ecological analysis aggregated patient and hospital characteristics from the Get With The Guidelines–Stroke registry (2007–2011), healthcare resource data from the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care (2006), and Medicare fee-for-service data on 30-day mortality and readmissions (2007–2011) to the hospital referral region (HRR) level. We used linear regression to estimate adjusted HRR-level 30-day outcomes, to identify HRR-level characteristics associated with 30-day outcomes, and to describe which characteristics explained variation in 30-day outcomes. The mean adjusted HRR-level 30-day mortality and readmission rates were 10.3% (SD=1.1%) and 13.1% (SD=1.1%), respectively; a modest, negative correlation ( r =−0.17; P =0.003) was found between one another. Demographics explained more variation in readmissions than mortality (25% versus 6%), but after accounting for demographics, comorbidities accounted for more variation in mortality compared with readmission rates (17% versus 7%). The combination of hospital characteristics and healthcare resources explained 11% and 16% of the variance in mortality and readmission rates, beyond patient characteristics. Most of the regional variation in mortality (65%) and readmission (50%) rates remained unexplained. Conclusions— Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates vary substantially across HRRs and exhibit an inverse relationship. While regional variation in 30-day outcomes were explained by patient and hospital factors differently, much of the regional variation in both outcomes remains unexplained.

Objective To describe self-reported disease understanding for newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and assess (1) how disease understanding changes over the first 6 months after diagnosis and (2) the relationship between patient understanding of therapies at baseline and treatment receipt at 6 months among treatment-naïve patients. Methods We analysed survey data from SATELLITE (Survey of Patient Knowledge and Personal Priorities for Treatment), a substudy of patients with new-onset AF enrolled in the national Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT) II registry across 56 US sites. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6-month follow-up clinic visits using Likert scales. Results Among 1004 baseline survey responses, patients’ confidence in their understanding of rhythm control, ablation, anticoagulation and cardioversion was suboptimal, with ‘high’ understanding ranging from 8.5% for left atrial appendage closure to 71.3% for rhythm therapy. Of medical history and demographic factors, education level was the strongest predictor of reporting ‘high’ disease understanding. Among the 786 patients with 6-month survey data, significant increases in the proportion reporting high understanding were observed (p<0.05) only for warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). With the exception of ablation, high understanding for a given therapeutic option was not associated with increased use of that therapy at 6 months. Conclusions About half of patients with new-onset AF understood the benefits of oral anticoagulant at the time of diagnosis and understanding improved over the first 6 months. However, understanding of AF treatment remains suboptimal at 6 months. Our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01701817.

The healthcare system is undergoing a transition from paying for volume to paying for value. Clinicians, as well as public and private payers, are beginning to implement alternative delivery and payment models, such as the patient-centered medical home, accountable care organizations, and bundled payment arrangements. Implementation of these new models will necessitate delivery system transformation and will actively involve all fields of medical care, in particular medicine and surgery. This call to action, on behalf of the American Heart Association’s Expert Panel on Payment and Delivery System Reform, serves to offer support and direction for further involvement by the American Heart Association. In doing so, it (1) provides baseline review and definition of the present models and some of the early results of these delivery models, including outcomes; (2) initiates a conversation within the American Heart Association on the impact of payment and delivery system reform, as well as how the American Heart Association should engage in the interest of patients; (3) issues a call to action to our organization and to cardiovascular and stroke health professionals across the country to become educated about these models so to as to understand their impact on patient care; and (4) asks the government and other funding agencies, including the American Heart Association, to begin supporting and prioritizing meaningful research endeavors to further evaluate these models.

BackgroundOral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy is associated with increased periprocedural risks after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Patterns of anticoagulation management involving non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have not been characterized.HypothesisAnticoagulation strategies and outcomes differ by anticoagulant type in patients undergoing CIED implantation.MethodsUsing the nationwide Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we assessed how atrial fibrillation (AF) patients undergoing CIED implantation were cared for and their subsequent outcomes. Outcomes were compared by oral anticoagulant therapy (none, warfarin, or NOAC) as well as by anticoagulation interruption status.ResultsAmong 9129 AF patients, 416 (5%) underwent CIED implantation during a median follow‐up of 30 months (interquartile range, 24–36). Of these, 60 (14%) had implantation on a NOAC. Relative to warfarin therapy, those on a NOAC were younger (70.5 years [range, 65–77.5 years] vs 77 years [range, 70–82 years]), had less valvular heart disease (15.0% vs 31.3%), higher creatinine clearance (67.3 [range, 59.7–99.0] vs 65.8 [range, 50.0–91.6]), were more likely to have persistent AF (26.7% vs 22.9%), and use concomitant aspirin (51.7% vs 35.2%). OAC therapy was commonly interrupted for CIED in 64% (n = 183 of 284) of warfarin patients and 65% (n = 39 of 60) of NOAC patients. Many interrupted patients received intravenous bridging anticoagulation: 33/183 (18%) interrupted warfarin and 4/39 (10%) interrupted NOAC patients. Thirty‐day periprocedure bleeding and stroke adverse events were infrequent.ConclusionsManagement of anticoagulation among AF patients undergoing CIED implantation is highly variable, with OAC being interrupted in more than half of both warfarin‐ and NOAC‐treated patients. Bleeding and stroke events were infrequent in both warfarin and NOAC‐treated patients.

Abstract Aims The presence of cancer can complicate treatment choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) increasing both the risk of thrombotic and bleeding events. Methods and results Using data from Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, we aimed to characterize AF patients with cancer, to describe their management and to assess the association between cancer and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Among 9749 patients, 23.8% had history of cancer (57% solid malignancy, 1.3% leukaemia, 3.3% lymphoma, 40% other type, and 2.2% metastatic cancer). Patients with history of cancer were older, more likely to have CV disease, CV risk factors, and prior gastrointestinal bleeding. No difference in antiarrhythmic and antithrombotic therapy was observed between those with and without cancer. Patients with history of cancer had a significantly higher risk of death (7.8 vs. 4.9 deaths per 100 patient-years follow-up, P = 0.0003) mainly driven by non-CV death (4.2 vs. 2.4 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.0004) and higher risk of major bleeding (5.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 patient-years follow-up; P = 0.02) compared with non-cancer patients; no differences were observed in risks of strokes/non-central nervous system embolism (1.96 vs. 1.48, P = 0.74) and CV death (2.89 vs. 2.07, P = 0.35) between the two groups. Conclusion A history of cancer is common among AF patients with up to one in four patients having both. Antithrombotic therapy, rates of cerebrovascular accident, other thrombotic events and cardiac death were similar in AF patients with or without a history of cancer. Patients with cancer, however, were at higher risk of major bleeding and non-CV death.

Background and Purpose— The recommended treatment for ischemic stroke is tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator). Although sickle cell disease (SCD) represents no known contraindication to tPA, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health recommended acute exchange transfusion for stroke in SCD, not tPA. Data on safety and outcomes of tPA in patients are needed to guide tPA use in SCD. Methods— We matched patients from the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry with SCD to patients without SCD and compared usage, complications, and discharge outcomes after tPA. Multivariable logistic regression models using generalized estimating equations were used to assess outcomes. Results— From 2 016 652 stroke patients admitted to Get With The Guidelines-Stroke sites in the United States, 832 SCD and 3328 non-SCD controls with no differences in admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale or blood pressure were identified. Neither the fraction receiving thrombolytic therapy (8.2% for SCD versus 9.4% non-SCD) nor symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (4.9% of SCD versus 3.2% non-SCD; P =0.4502) was different. There was no difference in a prespecified set of outcome measures for those with SCD compared with controls. Conclusions— Coexistent SCD had no significant impact on the safety or outcome of thrombolytic therapy in acute ischemic stroke. Although the sample size is relatively small, these data suggest that adults with SCD and acute ischemic stroke should be treated with thrombolysis, if they otherwise qualify. Addition studies, however, should track the intracranial hemorrhage rate and provide information on other SCD-related care such as transfusion.

Background Healthcare resources vary geographically, but associations between hospital‐based resources and acute stroke quality and outcomes remain unclear. Methods and Results Using Get With The Guidelines‐Stroke and Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care data, we examined associations between healthcare resource availability, stroke care, and outcomes. We categorized hospital referral regions with high‐, medium‐, or low‐resource levels based on the 2006 national per‐capita availability median of 6 relevant acute stroke care resources. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined healthcare resource level and in‐hospital quality and outcomes. Of 1 480 308 admitted ischemic stroke patients (2006–2013), 28.8% were hospitalized in low‐, 44.4% in medium‐, and 26.9% in high‐resource hospital referral regions. Quality‐of‐care/timeliness metrics, adjusted length of stay, and in‐hospital mortality were similar across all resource levels. Conclusions Significant variation exists in regional availability of healthcare resources for acute ischemic stroke treatment, yet among Get With the Guidelines‐Stroke hospitals, quality of care and in‐hospital outcomes did not differ by regional resource availability.