Wexler, Laura

Rationale: Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women. To address its determinants including persisting cardiovascular risk factors amplified by sex and race inequities, novel personalized approaches are needed grounded in the engagement of participants in research and prevention. Objective: To report on a participant-centric and personalized dynamic registry designed to address persistent gaps in understanding and managing cardiovascular disease in women. Methods and Results: The American Heart Association and Verily launched the Research Goes Red registry (RGR) in 2019, as an online research platform available to consenting individuals over the age of 18 years in the United States. RGR aims to bring participants and researchers together to expand knowledge by collecting data and providing an open-source longitudinal dynamic registry for conducting research studies. As of July 2021, 15 350 individuals have engaged with RGR. Mean age of participants was 48.0 48.0±0.2 years with a majority identifying as female and either non-Hispanic White (75.7%) or Black (10.5%). In addition to 6 targeted health surveys, RGR has deployed 2 American Heart Association-sponsored prospective clinical studies based on participants’ areas of interest. The first study focuses on perimenopausal weight gain, developed in response to a health concerns survey. The second study is designed to test the use of social media campaigns to increase awareness and participation in cardiovascular disease research among underrepresented millennial women. Conclusions: RGR is a novel online participant-centric platform that has successfully engaged women and provided critical data on women’s heart health to guide research. Priorities for the growth of RGR are centered on increasing reach and diversity of participants, and engaging researchers to work within their communities to leverage the platform to address knowledge gaps and improve women’s health.

Background— Prior studies have demonstrated an inconsistent association between patients’ arrival time for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and their subsequent medical care and outcomes. Methods and Results— Using a contemporary national clinical registry, we examined differences in medical care and in-hospital mortality among AMI patients admitted during regular hours (weekdays 7 am to 7 pm ) versus off-hours (weekends, holidays, and 7 pm to 7 am weeknights). The study cohort included 62 814 AMI patients from the Get With the Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease database admitted to 379 hospitals throughout the United States from July 2000 through September 2005. Overall, 33 982 (54.1%) patients arrived during off-hours. Compared with those arriving during regular hours, eligible off-hour patients were slightly less likely to receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89 to 0.98), had longer door-to-balloon times (median, 110 versus 85 minutes; P <0.0001), and were less likely to achieve door-to-balloon ≤90 minutes (adjusted OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.39). Arrival during off-hours was associated with slightly lower overall revascularization rates (adjusted OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.97). No measurable differences, however, were found in in-hospital mortality between regular hours and off-hours in the overall AMI, ST-elevated MI, and non–ST-elevated MI cohorts (adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.06; adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.18; and adjusted OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.04, respectively). Similar observations were made across most age and sex subgroups and with an alternative definition for arrival time (weekends/holidays versus weekdays). Conclusions— Despite slightly fewer primary percutaneous coronary interventions and overall revascularizations and significantly longer door-to-balloon times, patients presenting with AMI during off-hours had in-hospital mortality similar to those presenting during regular hours.