Citations

Background: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a life-threatening disease affecting up to 1% of the global population. Diagnosis can be challenging and is often delayed due to the need for advanced imaging and invasive procedures. The use of artificial intelligence applied to ECGs (ECG-AI) has been shown to detect subtle patterns in voltage-time data and may be a valuable tool for the early detection of PH. Hypothesis and Purpose: To evaluate the performance of a previously trained, ECG-AI algorithm to detect PH (ECG-AI PH) using real-world data (RWD) collected in a multicenter, validation study. A joint primary hypothesis required sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to exceed the null values of 76%, 70%, 10% and 90%. Study Design and Methods: This retrospective validation study was conducted at 5 geographically diverse U.S. health systems. Adult subjects were eligible for inclusion if they had a 12-lead ECG paired with an echocardiogram (Echo) in which tricuspid regurgitation velocity (TRV) was recorded, following presentation with dyspnea. Patients were classified according to echocardiographic criteria as either PH (PH+, TRV >3.4 m/s) or controls (PH-, TRV ≤2.8 m/s) to simulate the real-world use of ECG-AI, where a positive result could lead to a follow-up Echo. The study database was locked before processing the digital ECGs with ECG-AI PH. Performance was also estimated in a subset of subjects that later had a right heart catheterization using mPAP ≥ 20mmHg as the definition of PH. Results: A total of 14281 subjects (53% female, 63% aged 50+ years) met the inclusion criteria, including 3019 PH+ cases and 11262 PH- controls (Figure). Sn and Sp were 84.0% (95% CI: 82.6%, 85.3%) and 71.7% (95% CI: 70.9%, 72.6%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 18.9% (95% CI: 18.4%, 19.4%) and 98.3% (95% CI: 98.1%, 98.4%), respectively, at 7.3% prevalence. Each endpoint met pre-defined performance criteria. In the subset of 1683 subjects with a follow up RHC, performance remained robust (Sn 85% (1155/1358); Sp 46% (151/325)). Conclusion: While ECG-AI PH was first developed as an investigational tool to detect PH, continued development as software as a medical device for clinical use demonstrated that the algorithm retained strong performance to detect PH in diverse, non-overlapping clinical settings and patient populations.

Background: Deciding to use oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is complex. For many, the decision between treatment and non-treatment requires a primary tradeoff between the risks of potential stroke and increased bleeding. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patient values and empiric stroke risk measured by CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score would influence OAC decisions. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial where eligible clinicians and patients were independently randomized to one of two decision aids (DAs) – a patient decision aid and/or an encounter decision aid. Eligible patients were adults with AF with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc≥1 for men or ≥2 for women. Patients newly prescribed (OAC-naive subgroup) or already taking OAC (OAC-experienced subgroup) were included. We assessed patient values using a 5-point Likert scale between stroke prevention and bleeding risk after SDM during a clinical encounter. We report preliminary results using descriptive statistics and adjusted analysis to investigate the effects of CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and expressed values on OAC use. Results: 1005 patients were included in the analysis. 828 (82%) patients valued stroke prevention over bleeding risk. Among the OAC-naive group, 175 (63%) valued stroke prevention more than bleed avoidance, 58 (20%) valued bleed avoidance more than stroke prevention, and 47 (17%) were neutral. In the unadjusted analysis, patients were more likely to value stroke prevention if they were OAC-experienced (p<0.001), older (p<0.001), female (p< 0.001), had patient-reported bleeding (p=0.003), or if CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥ 2 if male, ≥3 if female (p<0.001) Table 1 . After adjustments, there were significant associations for OAC use among patients who valued stroke prevention (OR 5.35, 95%CI 3.13-9.13, p<0.001) or had higher CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (OR 2.03, 95%CI 1.26-3.27, p=0.004). Patients who valued bleed avoidance had an opposing association not to use OAC (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.11-0.48, p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients with elevated risk (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score, age, and female), and those who reported a prior bleeding event valued stroke prevention more than bleeding avoidance. Both empiric stroke risk and patient values were associated with the decision to use OAC. While the tradeoff between stroke prevention and bleeding risk is only one aspect of the decision-making process, these results indicate variability in patient values may influence OAC use.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of multiple decision aid strategies in promoting high quality shared decision making for prevention of stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Design Cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting Six academic medical centers in the United States. Participants Patient participants were aged ≥18 with a diagnosis of non-valvular atrial fibrillation, at risk for stroke (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥1 for men, ≥2 for women), and scheduled for a clinical appointment to discuss stroke prevention strategies. Participating clinicians were those who manage stroke prevention strategies for participating patients. Intervention Patients were randomized to use a patient decision aid or usual care; clinicians were randomized to use an encounter decision aid or usual care with all participating patients. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were quality of shared decision making measured by OPTION12, knowledge of atrial fibrillation and its management, and decisional conflict. Results 1117 participants across six sites were included in the analysis. Compared with usual care, the combined use of both the patient decision aid and the encounter decision aid improved the quality of shared decision making (adjusted mean difference 12.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.2; P<0.001), improved patients’ knowledge (odds ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.35 to 2.09; P<0.001), and reduced patients’ decisional conflict (adjusted mean difference −6.3 (95% CI −9.6 to −3.1; P<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also observed with the encounter decision aid alone versus usual care for all three outcomes and with the patient decision aid alone versus usual care for quality of shared decision making and knowledge. No important differences were observed in treatment choices for stroke prevention or in participants’ satisfaction. No statistically significant difference in the length of visit across study groups was detected. Conclusion Patients who received any decision aid (encounter decision aid, patient decision aid, or both) had lower decisional conflict, better shared decision making, and greater knowledge than those receiving no decision aid, except for the effect of the patient decision aid on decisional conflict, which did not reach statistical significance. The study establishes that use of either pre-visit or in-visit decision aids individually or in combination is advantageous compared with usual care. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04357288 .

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) making decisions regarding anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Decision support tools (e.g., Decision Aids [DAs]) facilitate SDM. However, little research has compared the effectiveness of the two most common types of DAs: (1) encounter decision aid (EDA) and (2) pre-encounter patient decision aid (PDA). Our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of PDAs and EDAs on SDM during AF clinical encounters where stroke prevention strategies were discussed. Research Question: Do decision aids (PDA or EDA), alone or in combination, improve patients’ AF decision-making experience compared to usual care? Methods: A cluster randomized multi-center trial in patients with AF comparing usual care (no DA) vs. one DA (EDA or PDA) or both DAs. Clinicians and patients were randomized independently into 4 study arms. Clinicians were randomized to use or not use the EDA for all study visits, and patients were randomized to use or not use the PDA. Co-primary outcome domains were: (1) quality of SDM (2) patient knowledge, and (3) decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes included: (1) treatment choice, (2) treatment initiation, and (3) treatment persistence. Patient characteristics were assessed. We will present comparisons of the randomized DAs on the co-primary and secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses. Results: Between December 2020-July 2023, investigators in 6 U.S. healthcare systems enrolled 1117 patients (mean (M) age 69, 63% male, 89% White) and 107 clinicians. Compared to usual care (no DA, M=31.6), SDM was better in patients receiving PDA (M=35.4) and EDA (44.5) alone or together (M=43.7; p’s<0.001). Knowledge about AF was greatest for those receiving both DAs or the PDA alone (84% accurate responses for PDA and both vs 76% with no DA, p<0.001), followed closely by the EDA alone (82%, p=0.003). Finally, both DAs (M=19.5) and EDA alone (M=20.0) had better decisional conflict scores compared to usual care (M=25.8; p’s<0.001). We will present analyses that assess the impact of DAs on secondary outcomes and interactions with DA, patient, and clinical characteristics across each outcome. Conclusions: In one of the first randomized trials examining the comparative effectiveness of EDAs and PDAs on SDM in clinical medicine, both PDAs and EDAs improved shared decision-making, decisional conflict, and knowledge compared to patients receiving usual care.

Introduction Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before. Design Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews. Results User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them. Highlights First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately. User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids. Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.

Objective: We aimed to characterize seasonal variation in US population-based blood pressure (BP) control and BP-related metrics and evaluate the association between outdoor temperature and BP control variation. Methods: We queried electronic health records (EHRs) from 26 health systems, representing 21 states, to summarize BP metrics by quarters of 12-month periods from January 2017 to March 2020. Patients with at least one ambulatory visit during the measurement period and a hypertension diagnosis during the first 6 months or prior to the measurement period were included. Changes in BP control, BP improvement, medication intensification, average SBP reduction after medication intensification across quarters and association with outdoor temperature were analyzed using weighted generalized linear models with repeated measures. Results: Among 1 818 041 people with hypertension, the majority were more than 65 years of age (52.2%), female (52.1%), white non-Hispanic (69.8%) and had stage 1/2 hypertension (64.8%). Overall, BP control and process metrics were highest in quarters 2 and 3, and lowest in quarters 1 and 4. Quarter 2 had the highest percentage of improved BP (31.95 ± 0.90%) and average SBP reduction after medication intensification (16 ± 0.23 mmHg). Quarter 3 had the highest percentage of BP controlled (62.25 ± 2.55%) and lowest with medication intensification (9.73 ± 0.60%). Results were largely consistent in adjusted models. Average temperature was associated with BP control metrics in unadjusted models, but associations were attenuated following adjustment. Conclusion: In this large, national, EHR-based study, BP control and BP-related process metrics improved during spring/summer months, but outdoor temperature was not associated with performance following adjustment for potential confounders.

Despite the global COVID-19 pandemic, during the past 2 years, there have been numerous advances in our understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms and diagnosis and in new therapies. We increased our understanding of risk factors and mechanisms of atrial arrhythmias, the prediction of atrial arrhythmias, response to treatment, and outcomes using machine learning and artificial intelligence. There have been new technologies and techniques for atrial fibrillation ablation, including pulsed field ablation. There have been new randomized trials in atrial fibrillation ablation, giving insight about rhythm control, and long-term outcomes. There have been advances in our understanding of treatment of inherited disorders such as catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. We have gained new insights into the recurrence of ventricular arrhythmias in the setting of various conditions such as myocarditis and inherited cardiomyopathic disorders. Novel computational approaches may help predict occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias and localize arrhythmias to guide ablation. There are further advances in our understanding of noninvasive radiotherapy. We have increased our understanding of the role of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing to maintain synchronous ventricular activation. There have also been significant advances in the defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, remote monitoring, and infection prevention. There have been advances in our understanding of the pathways and mechanisms involved in atrial and ventricular arrhythmogenesis.

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulation (DOACs) prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have a superior safety profile compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Yet, better definition of incidence and risk factors for major bleeding associated with DOACs in clinical practice may be important given emerging stroke prevention technologies, both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Purpose To describe the incidence of and risk factors for major bleeding in individuals with AF on DOAC therapy. Methods We reviewed electronic health record data for two patient cohorts with AF prescribed DOACs: (1) Duke University Health System (DUHS) (2010–2018) and (2) Sites within the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) (2015–2019) which had ≥6 years assimilated data from both inpatient and outpatient encounters (7 sites). In each cohort, we assessed the 5-year incidence of major bleeding events defined as hospitalization for intracranial hemorrhage, or hospitalization for gastro-intestinal bleeding or procedure to control bleeding accompanied by transfusion within ±7 days or death within 30 days. Multivariable Fine-Gray proportional hazards modeling in each cohort was performed to evaluate independent risk factors for major bleeding on DOAC therapy. Results The cohorts included 10,625 patients (DUHS) and 58,321 patients (PCORnet) with AF. Major bleeding events occurred within 5 years of diagnosis in 639 (7.9%) of DUHS patients and 2568 (6.6%) of PCORnet patients (Table 1). The DUHS model predicted time to first major bleeding event with a C-index of 0.756 (95% CI 0.737, 0.775) and the PCORNet model had a c-index of 0.745 (0.736, 0.755) (Table 2). Independent factors associated with major bleeding consistent across both models (p&lt;0.001 in PCORnet for all unless noted) were higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores, lower eGFR, anemia (HR per 1-point increase in hemoglobin up to 12 g/dL 0.79 [0.76, 0.82]), prior major bleeding (HR 2.70 [2.22, 3.30]), cancer (HR 1.23 [1.12, 1.36]), recent cardiac surgery (HR 0.70 [0.51, 0.97]; p=0.030), alcohol use (HR 1.56 [1.29, 1.88]), aspirin use (HR 1.44 [1.32, 1.57]), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use (HR 1.30 [1.19, 1.42]). Conclusions Across a large and geographically diverse contemporary population, risk of bleeding on DOAC for stroke prevention in AF remains a frequent and important clinical problem. There is an unmet need for stroke prevention therapies with improved safety profiles. We identified risk factors for major bleeding events on DOAC therapy, some of which are not represented in traditional risk scores, which may inform shared decision making for stroke prevention. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Bayer Pharmaceuticals

Background: Interruption of OAC is often required for invasive procedures, yet the frequency, management, and outcomes of temporary interruptions (TIs) in community practice are unknown. Methods: We assessed the frequency and reasons for TI in outpatients with AF enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of AF (ORBIT-AF). Patient characteristics and use of bridging anticoagulants were analyzed. Endpoints included periprocedural adverse events (bleeding, thrombotic, or other) and cause-specific hospitalization within 30 days after TI. Results: Overall 7,372 patients were treated with OAC at baseline; 30% (n=2200) required at least 1 TI during median follow-up of 1 year. Patients requiring TI were similar in age (mean age 74 for both) and CHADS2 scores (mean 2.4 for both) to those not requiring TI. Among 3104 interruptions, the most commonly-identified reasons were for non-cardiac surgery (n=827, 27%), followed by endoscopic procedures (n=551, 18%) and cardiac catheterization (n=308, 10%). Bridging anticoagulants were used in 23% (n=709) of interruptions, including low-molecular weight heparin (n=512) or unfractionated heparin (n=109). Rates of bridging were highest during cardiac surgery (44%), cardiac catheterization (32%), and catheter ablation (33%). Patients with a prior stroke or TIA were significantly more likely to receive bridging (35% vs. 25%, p=0.0003), however there was no difference between patients with CHADS2 score >=2 vs. 0-1 (27% vs. 25%, p=NS). Adverse events during interruption were more common in bridged patients (5.1% vs. 2.9%, p=0.02), including bleeding events (3.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.02); thrombotic events were uncommon (0.7 [n=4] vs. 0.5% [n=10], p=NS). After interruption, adverse events occurred early in follow-up (Figure), and bridged patients were more likely to experience any adverse event (13% vs. 6.3%, p<0.0001), cardiovascular hospitalization (4.3% vs. 2.3%, p=0.02), and bleeding hospitalization (2.2% vs. 0.7%, p=0.002) within 30 days. Conclusions: Temporary interruptions are common in patients receiving OAC for AF, however, bridging anticoagulation is used in a minority. Bleeding events following TI occurred significantly more often in patients receiving bridging anticoagulation.

Background: Dabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant approved in October 2010 for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation (AF), yet patterns of adoption of this novel agent in clinical practice are unknown. Methods: Using the ORBIT-AF Registry, a national outpatient prospective AF registry involving 170 sites, we examined patterns of those switching to dabigatran from warfarin from 2010 to 2012. Results: Of 7,066 patients with AF receiving warfarin at baseline, 511 (7%) were switched to dabigatran during follow-up. Patients switched to dabigatran were younger (median age 73 vs. 76, p<0.0001), more likely to be White (94% vs. 89%, p=0.001), and had better kidney function (median creatinine clearance (CrCl) 77 mL/min vs. 69 mL/min, p<0.0001), but less likely to have a history of anemia, (14% vs. 18%, p=0.009) or history of any cerebrovascular disease (14% vs. 17%, p=0.04) or CAD (22% vs. 34%, p<0.0001) or be followed in an anticoagulation clinic (36% vs. 45%, p<0.0001). Patients switched to dabigatran were more likely to have been recently diagnosed with AF (5.3% vs. 3.0%, p=0.03), and their CHADS 2 scores were significantly lower (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients receiving warfarin who were switched to dabigatran were younger, with lower CHADS 2 scores, better kidney function, and less concomitant cardiovascular disease than those not switched. This conservative transition pattern suggests greater physician emphasis on bleeding avoidance than on stroke risk reduction.