Citations

Background: Uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) is a leading preventable cause of death that remains common in the US population despite the availability of effective medications. New technology and program innovation has high potential to improve BP but may be expensive and burdensome for patients, clinicians, health systems, and payers and may not produce desired results or reduce existing disparities in BP control. Methods and Results: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is a platform designed to enable national surveillance and facilitate quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research. The platform uses PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, for engagement of health systems and collection of electronic health record data, and the Eureka Research Platform for eConsent and collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. Three demonstration projects are underway: BP track will conduct national surveillance of BP control and related clinical processes by measuring theory-derived pragmatic BP control metrics using electronic health record data, with a focus on tracking disparities over time; BP MAP will conduct a cluster-randomized trial comparing effectiveness of 2 versions of a BP control quality improvement program; BP Home will conduct an individual patient-level randomized trial comparing effectiveness of smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring. Thus far, BP Track has collected electronic health record data from over 826 000 eligible patients with hypertension who completed ≈3.1 million ambulatory visits. Preliminary results demonstrate substantial room for improvement in BP control (<140/90 mm Hg), which was 58% overall, and in the clinical processes relevant for BP control. For example, only 12% of patients with hypertension with a high BP measurement during an ambulatory visit received an order for a new antihypertensive medication. Conclusions: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory is designed to be a reusable platform for efficient surveillance and comparative effectiveness research; results from demonstration projects are forthcoming.

Background: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded National Blood Pressure Surveillance System (BP Track) is a new national system that generates quarterly metrics of blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related quality metrics for participating healthcare systems from electronic health record (EHR) data. Methods: Queries against standardized EHR data in the national Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Common Data Model format produce a set of quality metrics relevant to improving BP control, including Controlling High BP (NQF 0018) and Improvement in BP (CMS65v7), and eight process measures specific to clinical management and treatment practices for improving BP control ( Table ). The metrics, aggregated overall and by health system are reported back to health systems via user-friendly Tableau dashboards, and allow for observation of metric trends. Results: To date, 19 datamarts have contributed EHR data from 1,177,232 patients who met the eligibility criteria for the BP Control measure and 4,454,729 encounters that included a BP measurement during the measurement period. Average age was 62 years; 10% were young adults (<45 years), 17% were African American, 52% female, 28% had diabetes, 15% had coronary heart disease, and 14% had depression. Results demonstrate substantial opportunity for improvement in overall BP control (60% with BP<140/<90 mmHg, range: 42-72%), and many healthcare processes, including medication intensification (12%, 0.6-22%) and use of fixed dose combination medications (24%, 0-88%, Table ). Conclusion: Major opportunities exist for improving BP control, especially in improving the frequency and quality of BP medication prescribing for patients with high BP. The BP Track National BP Surveillance System will track these metrics, by demographic subgroup and over time, and will generate data that can guide and focus quality improvement initiatives aimed at effective BP management.

Background: New technology and healthcare delivery approaches may help improve blood pressure (BP) control. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can demonstrate effectiveness of these emerging approaches, both overall and especially within underserved populations, but RCTs are expensive. Our objective is to establish a national platform to support BP control surveillance and efficient RCTs. Methods: The PCORnet BP Control Laboratory, designed and launched in partnership with the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Medical Association (AMA), leverages electronic health record (EHR) systems throughout the US, the National Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Network (PCORnet), and the NIH-funded Eureka Research Platform, which enables direct-to-participant research including collection of patient-reported outcomes and mHealth data from wearable devices and smartphones. We will use these resources to 1) Conduct national surveillance through quarterly EHR data queries to calculate and track institution- and clinic-level BP control metrics across 23 PCORnet institutions, overall and within key subgroups, and support participation in the AHA/AMA’s Target:BP recognition program (BP Track); 2) Compare effectiveness of a Full Support versus Self-Guided version of the AMA’s Measure Accurately, Act Rapidly, and Partner with Patients (MAP) program at improving BP control in a cluster randomized trial of 24 safety net clinics (BP MAP); and 3) Compare effectiveness of Smartphone-linked versus standard home BP monitoring at reducing systolic BP in an individual-level, direct-to-participant RCT of 2000 patients with uncontrolled BP (BP Home). Results: Preliminary BP Track queries demonstrate an overall BP control rate of 56%, lower control in Black patients (51%), substantial heterogeneity in clinic-level metrics (e.g., 33% vs. 64% BP control), and low rates of medication intensification (9% prescribed a new medication class when BP was high). BP Track will launch PCORnet-wide queries in June; BP MAP in May; and BP Home in August 2019. Conclusions: Feasibility testing is underway to determine if the PCORnet BP Control Laboratory will be useful for investigators interested in conducting efficient RCTs of BP control interventions.

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on quality of life, but a clinically important difference in AFEQT score has not been well defined. Methods and Results: To determine the clinically important difference in overall AFEQT (score range= 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) and selected subscales, we analyzed data in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry, a United States-based outpatient atrial fibrillation registry. AFEQT was assessed at baseline and 1 year in a subset of 1347 ORBIT-AF patients from 80 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF from June 2010 to August 2011. The mean change method was used to relate changes in 1-year AFEQT scores to clinically important changes in the physician assessment of European Heart Rhythm Association functional status (1 class improvement and separately 1 class deterioration). Clinically important differences and 95% CI corresponding to either a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement or deterioration were 5.4 (3.6–7.2) and −4.2 (−6.9 to −1.5) AFEQT points, respectively. Similarly, clinically important difference values were seen for a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement for the AFEQT subscales Activities of Daily Living and Symptoms: 5.1 (2.5–7.6) and 7.1 (5.3–9.0) AFEQT points, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the anchor of 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class change, changes in AFEQT score of + or −5 points are clinically important changes in patients’ health. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) incorporates patient and physician values and preferences into treatment selection. While multiple therapeutic options are available for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), few studies have examined factors associated with SDM regarding choice of antithrombotic strategy. Methods: We evaluated survey data from 1006 patients with new-onset AF enrolled at 56 sites participating in a substudy of the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT II), an outpatient AF registry in the US. Patients were asked: “When choosing your blood thinner(s), who made this treatment decision?”, and SDM was defined as a response of “equally me and my healthcare provider (HCP)”, “mostly me” or “entirely me”, while no SDM was defined as a response of “mostly my HCP” or “entirely my HCP”. Multivariable logistic regression models evaluated associations between 13 patient-level factors, self-reported understanding of treatment options, and SDM for antithrombotic therapy. Results: Most patients allowed their HCP to make the therapeutic decisions on antithrombotic strategy, with 246 (24.5%) reporting SDM. Patients reporting SDM were more often female (47.2% vs. 40.5%) and were more frequently insured by Medicare (40.2% vs. 34.5%) than patients reporting no SDM. Among patients taking warfarin, median time in therapeutic range was higher among patients reporting SDM than among those not reporting SDM. In multivariable models, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was associated with lower odds of SDM while self-reported understanding of blood thinner options was associated with higher odds of SDM (Table). Conclusion: One in four patients in an outpatient AF registry reported that their current antithrombotic strategy was the result of a shared decision making process. Additional work is need to determine whether patient-reported SDM is associated with medication adherence and outcomes of therapy.

Background Oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) reduces stroke risk in atrial fibrillation, but bleeding is a frequent side effect. The decision to discontinue or modify medication regimens in response to a bleeding event may differ according to bleeding site and severity. Methods and Results We used data from a large, national outpatient registry, ORBIT ‐ AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation; 2010–2011), to evaluate event characteristics and OAC management following the first bleeding event occurring during follow‐up. Bleeding events were classified into 3 categories: (1) International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding, (2) clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding requiring medical attention, and (3) nuisance bleeding not requiring medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). Of 9743 patients enrolled in ORBIT ‐ AF with follow‐up data, 510 (3.23/100 subject‐years) experienced a major bleed, 615 (3.90/100 subject‐years), experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 1558 (9.87/100 subject‐years) experienced a nuisance bleed, among first bleeds over 2 years. Nearly one third of patients (31.6%) discontinued OAC therapy following a major bleeding event, 12.7% following a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 4.5% following a nuisance bleed. Compared with those who experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor or nuisance bleed, patients who experienced a major bleed were more likely to be black and female and to have a history of heart failure and stroke. Those who discontinued were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC therapy. Conclusions Overall, 1 in 3 patients who experienced a major bleed was no longer anticoagulated after the event. Those who discontinued OAC were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC .

Background: Bleeding is commonly cited as a reason for stopping oral anticoagulants (OACs). Whether minor bleeding events (nuisance bleeding, NB) in patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs are associated with OAC discontinuation, major bleeding, and stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) is unknown. Methods: Within the ORBIT-AF prospective, outpatient registry (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation), we identified 6771 patients ≥18 years of age at 172 sites with atrial fibrillation and eligible follow-up visits. NB was ascertained from the medical record and was defined as minor bleeding that did not require medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). We used multivariable pooled logistic regression modeling to evaluate the associations between NB and major bleeding and SSE in the 180 days after documentation of NB. Our unit of analysis was the patient visit, occurring at ≈6-month intervals for a median of 1.5 years following enrollment. Changes in anticoagulation treatment satisfaction after NB were examined descriptively in a subset of patients. Results: The median age of the overall population was 75.0 (interquartile range, 67.0–81.0); 90.0% were white and 42.5% were female. Among 6771 patients (18 560 visits), n=1357 (20.0%) had documented NB, for an incidence rate of 14.8 events per 100 person-years. Over 96.4% of patients remained on OAC therapy after the NB event. Overall, 287 (4.3%) patients experienced major bleeding and 64 (0.96%) had a SSE event during follow-up. NB was not associated with a significant increased risk of major bleeding over 6 months in models adjusting for the ATRIA bleeding score (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.60; P =0.86). NB was also not associated with increased SSE risk over 6 months in models adjusting for the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc risk score (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.91; P =0.62). Conclusions: NB is common among patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs. However, NB was not associated with a higher risk of major bleeding or SSE over the next 6 months, suggesting its occurrence should not lead to changes in anticoagulation treatment strategies in OAC-treated patients. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Objective To describe self-reported disease understanding for newly diagnosed patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and assess (1) how disease understanding changes over the first 6 months after diagnosis and (2) the relationship between patient understanding of therapies at baseline and treatment receipt at 6 months among treatment-naïve patients. Methods We analysed survey data from SATELLITE (Survey of Patient Knowledge and Personal Priorities for Treatment), a substudy of patients with new-onset AF enrolled in the national Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT) II registry across 56 US sites. Patients were surveyed at the baseline and 6-month follow-up clinic visits using Likert scales. Results Among 1004 baseline survey responses, patients’ confidence in their understanding of rhythm control, ablation, anticoagulation and cardioversion was suboptimal, with ‘high’ understanding ranging from 8.5% for left atrial appendage closure to 71.3% for rhythm therapy. Of medical history and demographic factors, education level was the strongest predictor of reporting ‘high’ disease understanding. Among the 786 patients with 6-month survey data, significant increases in the proportion reporting high understanding were observed (p<0.05) only for warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). With the exception of ablation, high understanding for a given therapeutic option was not associated with increased use of that therapy at 6 months. Conclusions About half of patients with new-onset AF understood the benefits of oral anticoagulant at the time of diagnosis and understanding improved over the first 6 months. However, understanding of AF treatment remains suboptimal at 6 months. Our results suggest a need for ongoing patient education. Clinical trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01701817.

Background Healthcare resources vary geographically, but associations between hospital‐based resources and acute stroke quality and outcomes remain unclear. Methods and Results Using Get With The Guidelines‐Stroke and Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care data, we examined associations between healthcare resource availability, stroke care, and outcomes. We categorized hospital referral regions with high‐, medium‐, or low‐resource levels based on the 2006 national per‐capita availability median of 6 relevant acute stroke care resources. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined healthcare resource level and in‐hospital quality and outcomes. Of 1 480 308 admitted ischemic stroke patients (2006–2013), 28.8% were hospitalized in low‐, 44.4% in medium‐, and 26.9% in high‐resource hospital referral regions. Quality‐of‐care/timeliness metrics, adjusted length of stay, and in‐hospital mortality were similar across all resource levels. Conclusions Significant variation exists in regional availability of healthcare resources for acute ischemic stroke treatment, yet among Get With the Guidelines‐Stroke hospitals, quality of care and in‐hospital outcomes did not differ by regional resource availability.