Publications

2023

Joyce, Nina R, Sarah E Robertson, Ellen McCreedy, Jessica Ogarek, Edward H Davidson, Vincent Mor, Stefan Gravenstein, and Issa J Dahabreh. (2023) 2023. “Assessing the Representativeness of Cluster Randomized Trials: Evidence from Two Large Pragmatic Trials in United States Nursing Homes.”. Clinical Trials (London, England) 20 (6): 613-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231185055.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: When the randomized clusters in a cluster randomized trial are selected based on characteristics that influence treatment effectiveness, results from the trial may not be directly applicable to the target population. We used data from two large nursing home-based pragmatic cluster randomized trials to compare nursing home and resident characteristics in randomized facilities to eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities.

METHODS: We linked data from the high-dose influenza vaccine trial and the Music & Memory Pragmatic TRIal for Nursing Home Residents with ALzheimer's Disease (METRICaL) to nursing home assessments and Medicare fee-for-service claims. The target population for the high-dose trial comprised Medicare-certified nursing homes; the target population for the METRICaL trial comprised nursing homes in one of four US-based nursing home chains. We used standardized mean differences to compare facility and individual characteristics across the three groups and logistic regression to model the probability of nursing home trial participation.

RESULTS: In the high-dose trial, 4476 (29%) of the 15,502 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 818 (18%) were randomized. Of the 1,361,122 residents, 91,179 (6.7%) were residents of randomized facilities, 463,703 (34.0%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 806,205 (59.3%) of ineligible facilities. In the METRICaL trial, 160 (59%) of the 270 nursing homes in the target population were eligible for the trial, of which 80 (50%) were randomized. Of the 20,262 residents, 973 (34.4%) were residents of randomized facilities, 7431 (36.7%) of eligible non-randomized facilities, and 5858 (28.9%) of ineligible facilities. In the high-dose trial, randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (132.5 vs 145.9 and 91.9, respectively), for-profit status (91.8% vs 66.8% and 68.8%), belonging to a nursing home chain (85.8% vs 49.9% and 54.7%), and presence of a special care unit (19.8% vs 25.9% and 14.4%). In the METRICaL trial randomized facilities differed from eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities by the number of beds (103.7 vs 110.5 and 67.0), resource-poor status (4.6% vs 10.0% and 18.8%), and presence of a special care unit (26.3% vs 33.8% and 10.9%). In both trials, the characteristics of residents in randomized facilities were similar across the three groups.

CONCLUSION: In both trials, facility-level characteristics of randomized nursing homes differed considerably from those of eligible non-randomized and ineligible facilities, while there was little difference in resident-level characteristics across the three groups. Investigators should assess the characteristics of clusters that participate in cluster randomized trials, not just the individuals within the clusters, when examining the applicability of trial results beyond participating clusters.

Nagueh, Sherif F, Allan L Klein, Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie, Nowell M Fine, James N Kirkpatrick, Daniel E Forsha, Alina Nicoara, et al. (2023) 2023. “A Vision for the Future of Quality in Echocardiographic Reporting: The American Society of Echocardiography ImageGuideEcho Registry, Current and Future States.”. Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography : Official Publication of the American Society of Echocardiography 36 (8): 805-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2023.05.001.
Ennis, Jackson S, Kirsten A Riggan, Nicholas Nguyen V, Daniel B Kramer, Alexander K Smith, Daniel P Sulmasy, Jon C Tilburt, Susan M Wolf, and Erin S DeMartino. (2023) 2023. “Triage Procedures for Critical Care Resource Allocation During Scarcity.”. JAMA Network Open 6 (8): e2329688. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.29688.

IMPORTANCE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many US states issued or revised pandemic preparedness plans guiding allocation of critical care resources during crises. State plans vary in the factors used to triage patients and have faced criticism from advocacy groups due to the potential for discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the role of comorbidities and long-term prognosis in state triage procedures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used data gathered from parallel internet searches for state-endorsed pandemic preparedness plans for the 50 US states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (hereafter referred to as states), which were conducted between November 25, 2021, and June 16, 2023. Plans available on June 16, 2023, that provided step-by-step instructions for triaging critically ill patients were categorized for use of comorbidities and prognostication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Prevalence and contents of lists of comorbidities and their stated function in triage and instructions to predict duration of postdischarge survival.

RESULTS: Overall, 32 state-promulgated pandemic preparedness plans included triage procedures specific enough to guide triage in clinical practice. Twenty of these (63%) included lists of comorbidities that excluded (11 of 20 [55%]) or deprioritized (8 of 20 [40%]) patients during triage; one state's list was formulated to resolve ties between patients with equal triage scores. Most states with triage procedures (21 of 32 [66%]) considered predicted survival beyond hospital discharge. These states proposed different prognostic time horizons; 15 of 21 (71%) were numeric (ranging from 6 months to 5 years after hospital discharge), with the remaining 6 (29%) using descriptive terms, such as long-term.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of state-promulgated critical care triage policies, most plans restricted access to scarce critical care resources for patients with listed comorbidities and/or for patients with less-than-average expected postdischarge survival. This analysis raises concerns about access to care during a public health crisis for populations with high burdens of chronic illness, such as individuals with disabilities and minoritized racial and ethnic groups.

Almarzooq, Zaid I, Yang Song, Issa J Dahabreh, Ajar Kochar, Enrico G Ferro, Eric A Secemsky, Jacqueline M Major, et al. (2023) 2023. “Comparative Effectiveness of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device Vs Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump or No Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock.”. JAMA Cardiology 8 (8): 744-54. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2023.1643.

IMPORTANCE: Recent studies have produced inconsistent findings regarding the outcomes of the percutaneous microaxial left ventricular assist device (LVAD) during acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the percutaneous microaxial LVAD vs alternative treatments among patients presenting with AMICS using observational analyses of administrative data.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This comparative effectiveness research study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of patients admitted with AMICS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019. Treatment strategies were compared using (1) inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate the effect of different baseline treatments in the overall population; (2) instrumental variable analysis to determine the effectiveness of the percutaneous microaxial LVAD among patients whose treatment was influenced by cross-sectional institutional practice patterns; (3) an instrumented difference-in-differences analysis to determine the effectiveness of treatment among patients whose treatment was influenced by longitudinal changes in institutional practice patterns; and (4) a grace period approach to determine the effectiveness of initiating the percutaneous microaxial LVAD within 2 days of percutaneous coronary intervention. Analysis took place between March 2021 and December 2022.

INTERVENTIONS: Percutaneous microaxial LVAD vs alternative treatments (including medical therapy and intra-aortic balloon pump).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day all-cause mortality and readmissions.

RESULTS: Of 23 478 patients, 14 264 (60.8%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 73.9 (9.8) years. In the inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis and grace period approaches, treatment with percutaneous microaxial LVAD was associated with a higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality (risk difference, 14.9%; 95% CI, 12.9%-17.0%). However, patients receiving the percutaneous microaxial LVAD had a higher frequency of factors associated with severe illness, suggesting possible confounding by measures of illness severity not available in the data. In the instrumental variable analysis, 30-day mortality was also higher with percutaneous microaxial LVAD, but patient and hospital characteristics differed across levels of the instrumental variable, suggesting possible confounding by unmeasured variables (risk difference, 13.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-23.2%). In the instrumented difference-in-differences analysis, the association between the percutaneous microaxial LVAD and mortality was imprecise, and differences in trends in characteristics between hospitals with different percutaneous microaxial LVAD use suggested potential assumption violations.

CONCLUSIONS: In observational analyses comparing the percutaneous microaxial LVAD to alternative treatments among patients with AMICS, the percutaneous microaxial LVAD was associated with worse outcomes in some analyses, while in other analyses, the association was too imprecise to draw meaningful conclusions. However, the distribution of patient and institutional characteristics between treatment groups or groups defined by institutional differences in treatment use, including changes in use over time, combined with clinical knowledge of illness severity factors not captured in the data, suggested violations of key assumptions that are needed for valid causal inference with different observational analyses. Randomized clinical trials of mechanical support devices will allow valid comparisons across candidate treatment strategies and help resolve ongoing controversies.

O’Connor, Matthew, Umberto Barbero, Daniel B Kramer, Angela Lee, Alina Hua, Tevfik Ismail, Karen P McCarthy, et al. (2023) 2023. “Anatomic, Histologic, and Mechanical Features of the Right Atrium: Implications for Leadless Atrial Pacemaker Implantation.”. Europace : European Pacing, Arrhythmias, and Cardiac Electrophysiology : Journal of the Working Groups on Cardiac Pacing, Arrhythmias, and Cardiac Cellular Electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology 25 (9). https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euad235.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (LPs) may mitigate the risk of lead failure and pocket infection related to conventional transvenous pacemakers. Atrial LPs are currently being investigated. However, the optimal and safest implant site is not known.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the right atrial (RA) anatomy and the adjacent structures using complementary analytic models [gross anatomy, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computer simulation], to identify the optimal safest location to implant an atrial LP human.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Wall thickness and anatomic relationships of the RA were studied in 45 formalin-preserved human hearts. In vivo RA anatomy was assessed in 100 cardiac MRI scans. Finally, 3D collision modelling was undertaken assessing for mechanical device interaction. Three potential locations for an atrial LP were identified; the right atrial appendage (RAA) base, apex, and RA lateral wall. The RAA base had a wall thickness of 2.7 ± 1.6 mm, with a low incidence of collision in virtual implants. The anteromedial recess of the RAA apex had a wall thickness of only 1.3 ± 0.4 mm and minimal interaction in the collision modelling. The RA lateral wall thickness was 2.6 ± 0.9 mm but is in close proximity to the phrenic nerve and sinoatrial artery.

CONCLUSIONS: Based on anatomical review and 3D modelling, the best compromise for an atrial LP implantation may be the RAA base (low incidence of collision, relatively thick myocardial tissue, and without proximity to relevant epicardial structures); the anteromedial recess of the RAA apex and lateral wall are alternate sites. The mid-RAA, RA/superior vena cava junction, and septum appear to be sub-optimal fixation locations.

Jalloh, Mohamed B, Tauben Averbuch, Prashanth Kulkarni, Christopher B Granger, James L Januzzi, Faiez Zannad, Robert W Yeh, et al. (2023) 2023. “Bridging Treatment Implementation Gaps in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC Focus Seminar 2/3.”. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 82 (6): 544-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.050.

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of death and disability in older adults. Despite decades of high-quality evidence to support their use, guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) that reduce death and disease burden in HF have been suboptimally implemented. Approaches to closing care gaps have focused largely on strategies proven to be ineffective, whilst effective interventions shown to improve GDMT uptake have not been instituted. This review synthesizes implementation interventions that increase the uptake of GDMT, discusses barriers and facilitators of implementation, summarizes conceptual frameworks in implementation science that could improve knowledge uptake, and offers suggestions for trial design that could better facilitate end-of-trial implementation. We propose an evidence-to-care conceptual model that could foster the simultaneous generation of evidence and long-term implementation. By adopting principles of implementation science, policymakers, researchers, and clinicians can help reduce the burden of HF on patients and health care systems worldwide.

Sandhu, Alexander T, Paul A Heidenreich, William Borden, Steven A Farmer, Michael Ho, Gmerice Hammond, Janay C Johnson, et al. (2023) 2023. “Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.”. Circulation 148 (6): 543-63. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001143.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Watson, Nathan W, Ido Weinberg, Andrew B Dicks, Esmond Fong, Jordan B Strom, Brett J Carroll, Aishwarya Raja, Robert Schainfeld, and Eric A Secemsky. (2023) 2023. “Clinical Significance of Right Heart Thrombus With and Without an Associated Pulmonary Embolism.”. The American Journal of Medicine 136 (11): 1109-1118.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.07.014.

BACKGROUND: Right heart thrombus is a rare but serious form of venous thromboembolic disease that may be associated with pulmonary embolism. The prognosis of patients with right heart thrombus presenting without a concomitant pulmonary embolism remains ill-defined.

METHODS: We conducted a multi-center observational cohort study to compare patients presenting with right heart thrombus with and without a concurrent pulmonary embolism. The primary endpoint was 90-day all-cause mortality. Multivariable regression was utilized to assess primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS: Of 231 patients with right heart thrombus, 104 (45.0%) had a pulmonary embolism at admission. The median age of the cohort was 59.4 years (interquartile range 44.9-71.3). Pulmonary embolism in the setting of a right heart thrombus was associated with an increased adjusted hazard of 90-day mortality (hazard ratio 3.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-8.97). Additionally, these patients had a higher adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.55; 95% CI, 1.15-5.94) and admission to the intensive care unit (OR 2.45; 95% CI, 1.23-4.94). Thrombus mobility (OR 2.99; 95% CI, 1.35-6.78) and larger thrombus sizes (OR 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) were associated with development of concurrent pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with right heart thrombus and pulmonary embolism had a more severe clinical presentation, required more advanced therapies, and had reduced survival compared with those without a concomitant pulmonary embolism. Important variables associated with development of concomitant pulmonary embolism include thrombus mobility and size. Right heart thrombus in the setting of acute pulmonary embolism represents a unique clinical entity that is associated with worse prognosis compared with right heart thrombus only.

Oseran, Andrew S, Yang Song, Jiaman Xu, Issa J Dahabreh, Rishi K Wadhera, James A de Lemos, Sandeep R Das, Tianyu Sun, Robert W Yeh, and Dhruv S Kazi. (2023) 2023. “Long Term Risk of Death and Readmission After Hospital Admission With Covid-19 Among Older Adults: Retrospective Cohort Study.”. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 382: e076222. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076222.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the long term risk of death and hospital readmission after an index admission with covid-19 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, and to compare these outcomes with historical control patients admitted to hospital with influenza.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: United States.

PARTICIPANTS: 883 394 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries age ≥65 years discharged alive after an index hospital admission with covid-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 August 2022, compared with 56 409 historical controls discharged alive after a hospital admission with influenza between 1 March 2018 and 31 August 2019. Weighting methods were used to account for differences in observed characteristics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause death within 180 days of discharge. Secondary outcomes included first all cause readmission and a composite of death or readmission within 180 days.

RESULTS: The covid-19 cohort compared with the influenza cohort was younger (77.9 v 78.9 years, standardized mean difference -0.12) and had a lower proportion of women (51.7% v 57.3%, -0.11). Both groups had a similar proportion of black beneficiaries (10.3% v 8.1%, 0.07) and beneficiaries with dual Medicaid-Medicare eligibility status (20.1% v 19.2%; 0.02). The covid-19 cohort had a lower comorbidity burden, including atrial fibrillation (24.3% v 29.5%, -0.12), heart failure (43.4% v 49.9%, -0.13), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (39.2% v 52.9%, -0.27). After weighting, the covid-19 cohort had a higher risk (ie, cumulative incidence) of all cause death at 30 days (10.9% v 3.9%; standardized risk difference 7.0%, 95% confidence interval 6.8% to 7.2%), 90 days (15.5% v 7.1%; 8.4%, 8.2% to 8.7%), and 180 days (19.1% v 10.5%; 8.6%, 8.3% to 8.9%) compared with the influenza cohort. The covid-19 cohort also experienced a higher risk of hospital readmission at 30 days (16.0% v 11.2%; 4.9%, 4.6% to 5.1%) and 90 days (24.1% v 21.3%; 2.8%, 2.5% to 3.2%) but a similar risk at 180 days (30.6% v 30.6%;-0.1%, -0.5% to 0.3%). Over the study period, the 30 day risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 admission decreased from 17.9% to 7.2%.

CONCLUSIONS: Medicare beneficiaries who were discharged alive after a covid-19 hospital admission had a higher post-discharge risk of death compared with historical influenza controls; this difference, however, was concentrated in the early post-discharge period. The risk of death for patients discharged after a covid-19 related hospital admission substantially declined over the course of the pandemic.