Li, Shuang

Introduction: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) assays were first approved for use in the U.S. in 2017. They are the guideline preferred biomarker to evaluate patients with acute chest pain. Few data exist regarding implementation of hs-cTn assays in the U.S. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that use of hs-cTn assays has increased over time and that patients assessed with hs-cTn have a shorter length of stay (LOS) and similar use of cardiac testing. Methods: We examined trends in implementation of hs-cTn assays among participating hospitals in the NCDR Chest Pain MI Registry from 1/1/2019 through 9/30/2021. Excluding STEMI patients, associations between hs-cTn use, in-hospital diagnostic imaging, and patient outcomes were assessed using logistic or negative binomial regression models. Results: Among 550 participating hospitals with 251,000 patients in the registry, implementation of hs-cTn assays increased from 3.3% in Q1, 2019 to 32.6% in Q3, 2021 (P trend <0.0001; Figure ). Implementation was similar by hospital size, type, and geographic location. hs-cTn use was associated with more echocardiography among patients with NSTE-ACS (82% vs. 75%; aOR: 1.43, 95% CI, 1.19-1.73) but not in low-risk chest pain. hs-cTn use was associated with decreased odds of invasive coronary angiography in low-risk patients (3.7% vs. 4.5%; aOR: 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58-0.92) but similar use in NSTE-ACS. There was no association between hs-cTn use and non-invasive stress/CTCA testing. Among NSTE-ACS patients, hs-cTn use was not associated with PCI, CABG, or in-hospital mortality. Use of hs-cTn was associated with shorter LOS (47.6 hours vs. 48 hours; IRR: 0.96, 95% CI, 0.93-0.98). Conclusions: Although implementation of hs-cTn among U.S. hospitals is increasing, most U.S hospitals continue to use less-sensitive troponin assays. hs-cTn use was associated with shorter LOS overall, greater use of echocardiography in NSTE-ACS, and lower use of invasive angiograms in low-risk patients.

AbstractBackgroundNon‐statin lipid lowering therapies (LLTs) provide additional treatment options for patients. Use patterns and patient perceptions of non‐statin LLT remain incompletely described.HypothesisThe guideline‐recommended statin intensity remains underutilized in patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.MethodsThe PALM Registry collected LLT information on patients with or at risk of ASCVD treated at 125 US clinics in 2015. We compared patient perceptions, lipid levels and statin use among patients treated with and without non‐statin LLT.ResultsAmong 7720 patients, 1930 (25.0%) were treated with a non‐statin LLT (1249 fish oil, 417 fibrates, 329 ezetimibe, 196 niacin). Concurrent statin treatment occurred in 73.7%, of which 45.4% were dosed under the guideline‐recommended intensity. Compared with patients on statin alone, patients receiving both a statin and non‐statin LLT (n = 1423) were more likely to be male, white race and to perceive themselves as higher risk of ASCVD compared with their peers (38.5% vs. 34.9%, p = .047). Only 27.4% of patients treated with non‐statin LLT alone perceived themselves at higher risk. Most (75.7%) patients treated with a non‐statin LLT alone reported never being treated with a statin, despite ASCVD in 30.8% of these patients. Among those previously treated with a statin, 59.3% reported being willing to try a statin again.ConclusionsNon‐statin LLT is used in one in four patients with or at risk for ASCVD; its use is frequently in place of statin therapy or in the absence of guideline‐recommended statin intensity. More work is needed to establish statins as first line therapy.

Background Many adults eligible for statin therapy for cardiovascular disease prevention are untreated. Our objective was to investigate patient‐reported reasons for statin underutilization, including noninitiation, refusal, and discontinuation. Methods and Results This study included the 5693 adults recommended for statin therapy in the PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry. Patient surveys evaluated statin experience, reasons for declining or discontinuing statins, and beliefs about statins and cardiovascular disease risk. Overall, 1511 of 5693 adults (26.5%) were not on treatment. Of those not on a statin, 894 (59.2%) reported never being offered a statin, 153 (10.1%) declined a statin, and 464 (30.7%) had discontinued therapy. Women (relative risk: 1.22), black adults (relative risk: 1.48), and those without insurance (relative risk: 1.38) were most likely to report never being offered a statin. Fear of side effects and perceived side effects were the most common reasons cited for declining or discontinuing a statin. Compared with statin users, those who declined or discontinued statins were less likely to believe statins are safe (70.4% of current users vs. 36.9% of those who declined and 37.4% of those who discontinued) or effective (86.3%, 67.4%, and 69.1%, respectively). Willingness to take a statin was high; 67.7% of those never offered and 59.7% of patients who discontinued a statin would consider initiating or retrying a statin. Conclusions More than half of patients eligible for statin therapy but not on treatment reported never being offered one by their doctor. Concern about side effects was the leading reason for statin refusal or discontinuation. Many patients were willing to reconsider statin therapy if offered.

Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults recommended testing low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL ‐C) to identify untreated patients with LDL ‐C ≥190 mg/dL, assess lipid‐lowering therapy adherence, and consider nonstatin therapy. We sought to determine whether clinician lipid testing practices were consistent with these guidelines. Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry enrolled primary and secondary prevention patients from 140 US cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care offices in 2015 and captured demographic data, lipid treatment history, and the highest LDL ‐C level in the past 2 years. Core laboratory lipid levels were drawn at enrollment. Among 7627 patients, 2787 (36.5%) had no LDL ‐C levels measured in the 2 years before enrollment. Patients without chart‐documented LDL ‐C levels were more often women, nonwhite, uninsured, and non–college graduates (all P <0.01). Patients without prior lipid testing were less likely to receive statin treatment (72.6% versus 76.0%; P =0.0034), a high‐intensity statin (21.5% versus 24.3%; P =0.016), nonstatin lipid‐lowering therapy (24.8% versus 27.3%; P =0.037), and had higher core laboratory LDL ‐C levels at enrollment (median 97 versus 92 mg/dL; P <0.0001) than patients with prior LDL ‐C testing. Of 166 individuals with core laboratory LDL ‐C levels ≥190 mg/dL, 36.1% had no LDL ‐C measurement in the prior 2 years, and 57.2% were not on a statin at the time of enrollment. Conclusions In routine clinical practice, LDL ‐C testing is associated with higher‐intensity lipid‐lowering treatment and lower achieved LDL ‐C levels.