Citations

ImportanceSelf-measured blood pressure (SMBP) with commercially available connected smartphone applications may help patients effectively use SMBP measurements.ObjectiveTo determine if enhanced SMBP paired with a connected smartphone application was superior to standard SMBP for blood pressure (BP) reduction or patient satisfaction.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted among 23 health systems participating in PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, and included patients who reported having uncontrolled BP at their last clinic visit, a desire to lower their BP, and a smartphone. Enrollment and randomization occurred from August 3, 2019, to December 31, 2020, which was followed by 6 months of follow-up for each patient. Analysis commenced shortly thereafter.InterventionsEligible participants were randomly assigned to enhanced SMBP using a device that paired with a connected smartphone application (enhanced) or a standard device (standard). Participants received their device in the mail, along with web-based educational materials and phone-based support as needed. No clinician engagement was undertaken, and the study provided no special mechanisms for delivering measurements to clinicians for use in BP management.Main Outcomes and MeasuresReduction in systolic BP, defined as the difference between clinic BP at baseline and the most recent clinic BP extracted from electronic health records at 6 months.ResultsEnrolled participants (1051 enhanced [50.0%] vs 1050 standard [50.0%]; 1191 women [56.7%]) were mostly middle-aged or older (mean [SD] age, 58 [13] years), nearly a third were Black or Hispanic (645 [31%]), and most were relatively comfortable using technology (mean [SD], 4.1 [1.1] of 5). The mean (SD) change in systolic BP from baseline to 6 months was −10.8 (18) mm Hg vs −10.6 (18) mm Hg (enhanced vs standard: adjusted difference, −0.19 mm Hg; 95% CI, −1.83 to 1.44;P = .81). Secondary outcomes were mostly null, except for documented attainment of BP control to lower than 140/<90 mm Hg, which occurred in 32% enhanced vs 29% standard groups (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.34). Most participants were very likely to recommend their SMBP device to a friend (70% vs 69%).Conclusions and RelevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that enhanced SMBP paired with a smartphone application is not superior to standard SMBP for BP reduction or patient satisfaction.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03796689

Background. Oral anticoagulation therapy (OAC) reduces the risk of thromboembolic events associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), yet a substantial proportion of patients with AF are not prescribed OAC. The frequencies of and factors associated with contraindications to OAC therapy in clinical practice are not well-described. Methods. We used data from the ORBIT-AF study, a national, prospective, outpatient registry of incident and prevalent AF. OAC contraindications were uniformly collected at study enrollment by site personnel. Patient and provider characteristics were compared between participants with documented OAC contraindications at baseline and those without OAC contraindications. Results. From June 2010 to August 2011, 10124 patients ≥18 years old with electrocardiographically documented AF were enrolled at 176 practices. Of these, 1409 (13.9%) had OAC contraindications documented at the baseline visit: prior bleed (26.2%), patient refusal/preference (26.0%), high bleeding risk (22.6%), frequent falls/frailty (16.6%), other (11.9%), need for dual antiplatelet therapy (9.8%), unable to adhere/monitor warfarin (5.7%), comorbid illness (5.0%), prior intracranial hemorrhage (4.7%), allergy (2.3%), occupational risk (0.8%), and pregnancy (0.2%). Compared to patients without contraindications, those with contraindications had higher stroke risk (CHADS2>2) and were older, more likely to be female, more likely to be seen by a cardiologist and less likely to be seen by an electrophysiologist (Table 1). Among those patients with reported contraindications, 28.4% were taking warfarin. Conclusions. Contraindications to OAC therapy among AF patients are common and often due to high bleeding risk. Furthermore, many patients with reported contraindications are taking warfarin, suggesting that many contraindications to warfarin therapy are minor, relative, or temporary.

Introduction: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet little is known about Lp(a) testing patterns in real-world practice. We hypothesized that Lp(a) testing occurs in a different population than calculated low density lipoprotein (LDL-C) testing alone, and that elevated Lp(a) is associated with greater lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) initiation and cardiovascular (CV) events. Methods: We used data from 11 health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. We created two cohorts based on lab tests from Jan 1, 2015 to Dec 31, 2019: 1) the Lp(a) cohort, of adults with an Lp(a) test and 2) the LDL-C cohort, of 4:1 date- and site-matched adults with an LDL-C test, but no Lp(a) test. We used logistic regression to assess the relationship between Lp(a) levels (< 50, 50-100, and > 100mg/dL) and initiation of LLT within 3 months; and cox proportional hazards to evaluate Lp(a) levels and time to all-cause hospitalization and the composite of MI, revascularization and ischemic stroke hospitalization. Results: Overall, 20,551 patients (0.06% per year) had Lp(a) tests, with median Lp(a) value 17.5mg/dL (Q1, Q3: 7.0, 56.0). Compared with the LDL-C cohort (N=82,204), the Lp(a) cohort more frequently had ASCVD (24.3% vs. 8.5%) or multiple prior CV events (8.6% vs. 2.6%). Elevated Lp(a) was associated with greater odds of LLT initiation (Figure 1). Elevated Lp(a) was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization; however, Lp(a) > 100mg/dL was correlated with composite CV hospitalization compared with Lp(a) < 50mg/dL [adj HR (95% CI): 1.24 (1.06-1.44), p=0.006]. Conclusions: Lp(a) testing occurs more often in adults with ASCVD and multiple CV events, but testing is infrequent. Elevated Lp(a) was associated with LLT initiation, including niacin, despite lack of evidence of CV benefit. There was an association between elevated Lp(a) and CV hospitalization outcomes.

Background: Little information exists on clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) following a major bleeding event in clinical practice. Methods: We used data from a large, national outpatient registry, ORBIT-AF (2010 – 2011), to evaluate event characteristics and oral anticoagulation (OAC) management following a major bleeding event. Major bleeds were defined according to ISTH criteria. We compared baseline characteristics among patients who persisted on OAC therapy at the first clinic visit following a major bleed and those in whom OAC was discontinued using chi-squared tests. Results: Of 10135 patients enrolled in ORBIT-AF, n=791 (7.8%) bleeding events occurred during 2 years of follow-up. Among patients who were receiving OA, n=632 (3.5 per 100 person years) experienced a major bleed. Of these, 67.3% experienced a fall in hemoglobin and 46.8% required transfusion of 2 of more units of red blood cells. Critical site bleeding occurred in 150 OAC patients, with the majority of these classified as intracranial bleeding (n= 89), followed by retroperitoneal (n=25) and intraocular (n=17). Fatal bleeds occurred in 37 patients (5.9% of all major bleeds). Nearly one-third of patients (31.0%) discontinued OAC therapy following the major bleeding event. Compared with those who persisted on OAC, patients who discontinued OAC were more likely to have hypertension and CKD. Those who discontinued OAC were more likely to have gastrointestinal or CNS site bleeding compared with those who persisted (Table). Conclusions: One in three patients who experienced a major bleed were no longer optimally anticoagulated after the event. Those who discontinued OAC had a greater comorbidity burden and more likely to have bleeding in a critical site those who persisted on OAC.

Background Associations between depression, incident heart failure (HF), and mortality are well documented in predominately White samples. Yet, there are sparse data from racial minorities, including those who are women, and depression is underrecognized and undertreated in the Black population. Thus, we examined associations between baseline depressive symptoms, incident HF, and all‐cause mortality across 10 years. Methods and Results We included Jackson Heart Study (JHS) participants with no history of HF at baseline (n=2651; 63.9% women; median age, 53 years). Cox proportional hazards models tested if the risk of incident HF or mortality differed by clinically significant depressive symptoms at baseline (Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression scores ≥16 versus <16). Models were conducted in the full sample and by sex, with hierarchical adjustment for demographics, HF risk factors, and lifestyle factors. Overall, 538 adults (20.3%) reported high depressive symptoms (71.0% were women), and there were 181 cases of HF (cumulative incidence, 0.06%). In the unadjusted model, individuals with high depressive symptoms had a 43% greater risk of HF ( P =0.035). The association remained with demographic and HF risk factors but was attenuated by lifestyle factors. All‐cause mortality was similar regardless of depressive symptoms. By sex, the unadjusted association between depressive symptoms and HF remained for women only ( P =0.039). The fully adjusted model showed a 53% greater risk of HF for women with high depressive symptoms ( P =0.043). Conclusions Among Black adults, there were sex‐specific associations between depressive symptoms and incident HF, with greater risk among women. Sex‐specific management of depression may be needed to improve cardiovascular outcomes.

Background The National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System was established to identify opportunities for blood pressure (BP) control improvement and to provide a mechanism for tracking improvement longitudinally. Methods and Results We conducted a serial cross‐sectional study with queries against standardized electronic health record data in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) common data model returned by 25 participating US health systems. Queries produced BP control metrics for adults with well‐documented hypertension and a recent encounter at the health system for a series of 1‐year measurement periods for each quarter of available data from January 2017 to March 2020. Aggregate weighted results are presented overall and by race and ethnicity. The most recent measurement period includes data from 1 737 995 patients, and 11 956 509 patient‐years were included in the trend analysis. Overall, 15% were Black, 52% women, and 28% had diabetes. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was observed in 62% (range, 44%–74%) but varied by race and ethnicity, with the lowest BP control among Black patients at 57% (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66–0.94). A new class of antihypertensive medication (medication intensification) was prescribed in just 12% (range, 0.6%–25%) of patient visits where BP was uncontrolled. However, when medication intensification occurred, there was a large decrease in systolic BP (≈15 mm Hg; range, 5–18 mm Hg). Conclusions Major opportunities exist for improving BP control and reducing disparities, especially through consistent medication intensification when BP is uncontrolled. These data demonstrate substantial room for improvement and opportunities to close health equity gaps.

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on QualiTy-of-Life (AFEQT) survey has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on patients’ quality of life, but a clinically important difference (CID) in AFEQT score has not been defined. Knowing the CID is needed to interpret the meaningfulness of differences between treatments in clinical trials; or patient populations for quality assessment. Objectives: To calculate CID values in AFEQT in the ORBIT registry. Methods: ORBIT-AF is a US-based outpatient AF registry that measured disease-specific QoL with the AFEQT tool (score range= 0 (worst) to 100) at baseline and at 1 year follow-up. Two anchor-based methods were used to relate changes in AFEQT to clinically important differences in the more established European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) measure of functional status. Ranging from 1 (no symptoms) to 4 (disabling), a change of 1 EHRA class was defined as an important change in the anchor. Both the mean change and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) methods were then used to identify CIDs in AFEQT at 1 year follow-up. This was done for both improvement and worsening on the anchor. The mean change method defines a CID as the mean change in AFEQT score among patients with a 1 EHRA class change. The ROC method identifies a CID as the point on the ROC curve that best discriminates patients who experienced an important change in the anchor (≥ 1 EHRA class change) from those who experienced no change. Results: AFEQT was assessed in 2008 AF patients at baseline and 1347 patients at 1 year from 99 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF. CIDs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) corresponding to an improvement in EHRA for the mean change method were 5.4 (3.6, 7.2) AFEQT points and 1.9 (0.4, 9.3) AFEQT points for the ROC method. CIDs corresponding to worsening in EHRA for the mean change method were -4.2 (-6.9,-1.5) AFEQT points and -7.4 (-13.9,-4.6) AFEQT points for the ROC method. Conclusions: Changes in AFEQT as small as 2 points may be clinically relevant, although CIDs vary depending on the method of calculation. The variability suggests identifying a single universal CID to assess improvement in quality of life in AF patients may not be ideal and improvement may relate to the nature of a patient’s symptoms and their baseline level of activity.

Background: Little is known about whether insurance status affects the presentation and treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We used data from the ORBIT-AF Registry (2010 - 2011), a national, large outpatient registry, to evaluate clinical characteristics and oral anticoagulation (OAC) use. We examined differences in comorbidities and receipt of OAC among patients enrolled in the Medicaid program at baseline compared with those not enrolled in Medicaid. After restricting to patients who were taking OAC, we compared receipt of novel oral anticoagulants (dabigatran or rivaroxaban) versus warfarin by Medicaid status during 2 years of followup. We used logistic regression models adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates to evaluate baseline OAC receipt by Medicaid status. Results: Of 10,133 patients, N=470 (4.6%) were classified as having Medicaid insurance. Compared with those with other insurance, Medicaid patients were younger (70.0 years; IQR=61.0 - 79.0 vs. 75.0 years; IQR=67.0 - 82.0), more likely to be female (53.0% vs. 41.8%), and less likely to be white (58.7% vs. 90.7%; all p<0.001). Medicaid patients had higher rates of smoking, prior stroke/TIA, diabetes, hypertension, and HF. Medicaid patients were less likely to be taking OAC at baseline, a difference that was particularly pronounced for high stroke risk patients (CHADS2>=2, p<0.001; Table). Among those on anticoagulation, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive NOAC over 2 years of followup. In adjusted analyses, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive OAC at baseline, but this difference was not statistically significant (HR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.61, 1.09). Among untreated patients with CHADS2>=2, Medicaid patients were more likely than patients with other insurance to have “unable to adhere/monitor” listed as a contraindication to OAC (p<0.001). Conclusions: In a contemporary, community-based AF cohort, Medicaid patients had a greater comorbidity burden and higher stroke risk, yet were less likely to receive OAC compared with those with other forms of insurance.

Introduction: Patient understanding of available therapies for atrial fibrillation (AF) is foundational to shared medical decision making and long term medication adherence. Yet, there is a paucity of data regarding the extent to which patients newly diagnosed with AF in routine community practice understand their options. Hypotheses: 1) Understanding of warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC), rhythm control therapy, cardioversion and radio frequency ablation changes little from baseline to 6 months and 2) treatment rates at 6 months are associated with patient understanding of therapies at baseline. Methods: We analyzed survey data from SATELLITE, a substudy of new-onset AF patients enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the ORBIT-AF registry. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6 month follow up clinic visit using Likert scales. Agreement between time points was assessed with the McNemar test, and the relationship between understanding and treatment was assessed only for the subset not on treatment at baseline. Results: Of 1000 patients enrolled in SATELLITE, 506 had 6-month survey data (data collection is continuing). Among these, the median age was 69.0 years (IQR 63.0 - 76.0) and 93.7% (474 of 506) were white. There was evidence of improvement in the self-reported understanding of warfarin and NOACs from baseline to 6 months, but not for rhythm control, ablation or cardioversion. The proportion reporting high understanding improved significantly for warfarin (p<.0001) and NOACs (p<.0001) from 47% (223 of 474) and 51% (245 of 481) at baseline to 60% (284 of 474) and 69% (332 of 481) at 6 months respectively (Figure 1). Patients with high understanding of the benefits of ablation (p=0.0005) and options for ablation (p=0.0093) at baseline were more likely to have this therapy at the 6 month follow up (N=590), but improved understanding was not associated with increased use of warfarin/NOACs (N=83) or rhythm control (N=444). Conclusions: Patients with new-onset AF had improved self-reported understanding of some treatment options over the first 6-months from diagnosis; however, factors other than patient understanding may influence AF treatments received at 6 months. Patient understanding of AF treatments remains suboptimal at 6 months, and our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education.

Abstract Aims To determine the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), during selection of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and rhythm control treatments, in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 US sites participating in the SATELLITE substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II). Patients completed surveys at enrolment and at 6-month follow-up. Patients were asked about who made their AF treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was classified as one that the patient felt was an autonomous decision or a shared decision with their healthcare provider (HCP). Approximately half of patients reported that their OAC treatment decisions were made entirely by their HCP. Compared with those reporting no SDM, patients reporting SDM for OAC were more often female (47.2% vs. 38.4%), while patients reporting SDM for rhythm control were more often male (62.2% vs. 57.6%). The most important factors cited by patients during decision-making for OAC were reducing stroke and bleeding risk, and their HCP’s recommendations. After adjustment, patients with self-reported understanding of OAC, and rhythm control options, had higher odds of having participated in SDM [odds ratio (OR) 2.54, confidence interval (CI): 1.75–3.68 and OR 2.36, CI: 1.50–3.71, both P ≤ 0.001, respectively]. Conclusion Shared decision-making is not widely implemented in contemporary AF practice. Patient understanding about available therapeutic options is associated with a more than a two-fold higher likelihood of SDM, and may be a potential target for future interventions.