Sennhauser, Susie

The high prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension in underserved populations is a major cause of health disparities in the United States and requires innovative health care delivery interventions. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies examining the effectiveness of contemporary systems change and quality improvement interventions aimed at improving blood pressure (BP) control published from 2010 to 2020. We included studies evaluating multicomponent practice improvement interventions conducted in the United States in community health centers. We identified 26 studies including 48 187 patients with hypertension with a high proportion of racial/ethnic minorities, low socioeconomic status, and a high burden of chronic illness. Multicomponent interventions led to an average reduction of 5 to 10 mm Hg in systolic BP. Four studies demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating pharmacists into community health centers for BP management and reduced cardiovascular disparities for at-risk populations. Five studies demonstrated the effectiveness of integrating community health workers into care workflows leading to reduction in BP and high patient satisfaction. Five studies used the electronic medical record as a tool for population management and showed only modest reduction in BP. One study demonstrated the effectiveness of incentivizing clinics with higher payments for uninsured and Medicaid patients meeting performance criteria. Very few studies evaluated treatment complications or medications side effects. Multicomponent quality improvement interventions instituted in community health centers are effective in lowering BP. Several components of the interventions were identified as being associated with higher efficacy.

Introduction: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure is well established as an alternative to anticoagulation therapy for stroke prophylaxis among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) with relative or absolute contraindications to anticoagulation. Only the Watchman® (BSC) device has FDA approval for this indication. There are no current guidelines on the choice of short term antithrombotic therapy following placement of the Watchman® device. The landmark Watchman® clinical trials utilized warfarin and aspirin in the first 45 days to facilitate endothelialization; however these studies were started prior to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) becoming widely available. Our main objective was to compare bleeding outcomes with warfarin vs. DOACs following Watchman® device placement. Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a Watchman® device at all three Mayo Clinic sites (MN, FL, AZ) between January 2010 and December 2018 with follow up for outcomes at 45 days or 6 weeks following procedure. We conducted bivariate analysis using t-tests and chi-square tests as appropriate. A logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate the effect of anticoagulant choice on bleeding and thromboembolic outcomes. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding leading to interruption of anticoagulation regimen or requiring transfusion. Results: 232 patients were identified (33% female), mean age in years, CHADS2VASC score and HASBLED scores were 77, 5 and 4 respectively. Overall, 39% were initiated on non-warfarin therapies and 11% had a significant bleeding episode during follow up. There was no difference in clinically significant bleeding events (11% vs. 12%; OR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.32 – 2.65) with short term DOAC use compared to warfarin. Patients who received a Watchman® due to GI bleeding were more likely to have a bleeding event in the first 6 weeks following Watchman® (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 1.30 – 12.75). Conclusion: This observational study demonstrates no significant difference in bleeding episodes with DOACs compared to warfarin during the first 6 weeks following Watchman® device placement in patients at high risk for bleeding. Larger prospective studies are needed.

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.