Shrader, Peter

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: Institutions that participate in PCORnet ® transform their local electronic health record (EHR) data into the PCORnet ® Common Data Model (CDM), which is then used to generate data extracts for PCORnet ® Studies. PCORnet ® Studies can also include institutions that do not participate in PCORnet, and for these organizations, the cost of instantiating a PCORnet ® CDM can be prohibitive. Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR) provides an alternative method of obtaining EHR data. Objective: To determine whether data obtained through FHIR might be a viable study solution for those sites that do not participate in PCORnet. ® This mixed-methods project had 2 objectives: (1) survey sites participating in PCORnet on the availability of FHIR (FHIR survey); (2) compare the coverage of a FHIR-based data extract using REDCap with one from the PCORnet ® CDM across 3 sites (FHIR extract). Methods: (1) FHIR survey: A series of questions were asked about the use of FHIR in a production capacity. (2) FHIR extract: REDCap FHIR and PCORnet ® CDM extracts were created based on study variables from 2 prior PCORnet ® Studies. Data were extracted for 40 patients and concordance measures were computed between the 2 sources. Results: (1) FHIR survey: Of responding organizations, 73% (n=49) reported that FHIR was deployed in a production capacity. (2) FHIR extract: Results were highly variable. Cohen kappa ranged from 0.01 to 0.76 for certain diagnoses, 0.24 to 0.84 for laboratory results, and 0.1 to 0.87 for medications. Conclusions: Despite differences in data, certain studies may be well-suited for FHIR-based extracts.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction: Warfarin and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) such as dabigatran are effective for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, few analyses have compared persistence rates of warfarin vs. dabigatran-treated patients. Methods: The ORBIT-AF registry enrolled patients with AF from 173 clinical practices across the US. One-year persistence of warfarin vs. dabigatran was defined as treatment at baseline visit and at 1-year follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify characteristics associated with warfarin or NOAC persistent use. Results: At baseline, 6.4% (N=459/7,150) were treated with dabigatran and 93.6% (N=6,691/7,150) with warfarin. Patients treated with warfarin at baseline were older (74 vs. 71, p<.0001), had more NYHA class III/IV heart failure (7 vs. 5, p=.0007), lower creatinine clearance (77 vs. 88, p<.0001), higher CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores, and more prior CVA/TIA events (16 vs. 11, p=.003). Patients treated with dabigatran had more severe symptoms (EHRA class III: 20 vs. 14, p<.0001), higher rates of treatment with a rhythm control strategy (42.7 vs. 28.2, p<.0001), more attempts at cardioversion (38.3 vs. 32.1, p<.006), and catheter ablation of AF (9.8 vs. 5.2, p<.0001). At 12 months, adjusted persistence rates for warfarin were higher than dabigatran [82% (80-84) vs. 67% (61-73) p<.0001]. Factors independently associated with one year persistence were: African American race (OR 1.53, 95% C.I. 1.07-2.19, p=0.02), Hispanic race (OR 1.66, 95% C.I. 1.06-2.60), paroxysmal AF (vs. new onset) (OR 1.68, 95% C.I. 1.21-2.33, p=.002), LVH (OR 1.40, 95% C.I. 1.08-1.81, p=.01), persistent AF (vs. new onset) (OR 1.91, 95% C.I. 1.35-2.69, p=.0002), and CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores ≥ 2 (OR 1.94, 95% C.I. 1.18-3.19, p=.009). Conclusion: Persistence rates for warfarin were higher at one year than those on dabigatran. In addition, factors associated with persistence of warfarin include: African American and Hispanic race, type of AF including permanent and persistent, LVH, and CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores ≥ 2.

Objective: Diabetes is a common among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, little is known on the impact of diabetes on symptoms, health status, care and outcomes among AF patients. We assessed whether symptoms, health status, care and outcomes differ between AF patients with and without diabetes. Methods: This observational cohort study included 9,749 patients with AF from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation registry, a prospective, nationwide, multicenter outpatient registry of patients with incident and prevalent AF enrolled at 174 sites between June 2010 and August 2011. The outcomes were symptoms, health status, and AF treatment, as well as 2-year risks of death, readmission, thrombomebolic events, heart failure (HF) and AF progression. Results: Among AF patients; those with diabetes (29.5%) were younger and more likely to have hypertension, chronic kidney disease, HF, coronary heart disease, and stroke. Patients with diabetes had a lower Atrial Fibrillation Effects on Quality of Life score (80.6 [IQR: 62.5 - 92.6] vs. 82.4 [IQR: 67.6 -93.5]; P = 0.025), but a higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (5 [IQR: 4 - 6] vs. 4 [2 - 5]; P <0.0001) and were more likely to receive anticoagulation ( P <0.001). Diabetes was associated with higher mortality, with a greater overall (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.63 [95% CI: 1.04-2.56] for age<70 vs. 1.25 [1.09-1.44] for age ≥70) and cardiovascular (2.20 [1.22-3.98] for age<70 vs. 1.24 [1.02-1.51] for age ≥70) mortality risks before age 70 years. Diabetes conferred a higher risk of non-cardiovascular (CV) death (1.29 [1.06-1.56]), sudden cardiac death (1.53 [1.04-2.26]), hospitalization (1.15 [1.09-1.22]), CV hospitalization (1.13 [1.05-1.22]) and non-CV and non-bleeding-related hospitalization (1.19 [1.10-1.30]); but no increase in risks of thromboembolic events, bleeding related hospitalization, new-onset HF, and AF progression. The use of oral anticoagulants (OAC) modifies the relation of diabetes and all-cause hospitalization, with a higher risk among those on OAC (1.21 [1.12-1.29]). Conclusions: Among patients with AF, diabetes was associated with worse AF symptoms and lower quality of life, as well an increased risk of death and hospitalizations, but not with the risk of thromboembolic or bleeding events.

Background: Studies evaluating the effects of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic therapy on outcomes have shown mixed results. In addition, guidelines recommend continuing oral anticoagulation (OAC) after ablation for those at risk of stroke, but real-world data are lacking. Methods: We evaluated outcomes including death, myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial bleeding, major bleeding, and hospitalization in patients undergoing AF ablation compared with a propensity score matched cohort of patients treated with anti-arrhythmic medications only in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation registries. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to evaluate the association between AF ablation and outcomes. We then evaluated patterns of treatment with OAC among AF ablation patients. Results: Among 21 595 patients, 1190 (6%) underwent de novo AF ablation. Our propensity score-matched cohort included 1087 patients who underwent AF ablation matched 1:1 with 1087 patients treated with antiarrhythmic medications only. There were no significant differences in the risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death, and most other major adverse cardiovascular and neurological events. AF catheter ablation was associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization during follow-up (hazard ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05–1.46]), particularly in the first 3 months (the standard blanking period) after the procedure. Among those who underwent AF ablation with a CHA 2 DS 2 VASc score ≥2 for men and ≥3 for women, 23% had OAC discontinued after ablation. Among those who discontinued OAC, the median time to discontinuation was 6.2 months. Conclusions: In this large US national registry, we found no difference in adjusted rates of cardiovascular or all-cause death between patients treated with AF catheter ablation and antiarrhythmic medications only. Notably, discontinuation of OAC after ablation remains relatively common despite guideline recommendations for continued stroke prevention therapy in patients at risk of stroke.

Background Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist ( MRA ) therapy may be beneficial to patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ), but little is known about their use in patients with AF and subsequent outcomes. Methods and Results In order to better understand MRA use and subsequent outcomes, we performed a retrospective cohort study of the contemporary ORBIT ‐ AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registry. AF progression and cardiovascular outcomes were compared using propensity‐matched Cox proportional hazards modeling according to MRA use at baseline and new MRA use at follow‐up versus patients with no MRA use. Among 7012 patients with nonpermanent AF , 320 patients were taking MRA at enrollment, and 416 patients initiated MRA use during follow‐up. The mean patient age was 72.5 years, 56.3% were men, and 70.4% had paroxysmal AF . Among all patients taking MRAs, 434 (59.0%) had heart failure, 655 (89.0%) had hypertension, and 380 (51.6%) had both. After adjustment, new MRA use was not associated with reduced AF progression (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.58; P =0.27) but showed a trend towards lower risk of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or systemic embolism (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–1.23; P =0.08). Results were similar for a comparison of new MRA users and baseline MRA users compared with nonusers. Conclusions In community‐based outpatients with AF , the majority of MRA use was for heart failure and hypertension. MRA use also trended towards lower adjusted stroke risk. Future studies should test the hypothesis that MRA use may decrease the risk of stroke in patients with AF .