Shoutzu Lin

Association Between Intensity of Statin Therapy and Mortality in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Importance High-intensity statin therapy is recommended for the secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Nevertheless, statin therapy in general, and high-intensity statin therapy in particular, is underused in patients with established ASCVD. Objective To determine the association between all-cause mortality and intensity of statin therapy in the Veterans Affairs health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of patients aged 21 to 84 years with ASCVD treated in the Veterans Affairs health care system from April 1, 2013, to April 1, 2014. Patients who were included had 1 or more International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for ASCVD on 2 or more different dates in the prior 2 years. Exposures Intensity of statin therapy was defined by the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, and use was defined as a filled prescription in the prior 6 months. Patients were excluded if they were taking a higher statin dose in the prior 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was death from all causes adjusted for the propensity to receive high-intensity statins. Results The study sample included 509 766 eligible adults with ASCVD at baseline (mean [SD] age, 68.5 [8.8] years; 499 598 men and 10 168 women), including 150 928 (29.6%) receiving high-intensity statin therapy, 232 293 (45.6%) receiving moderate-intensity statin therapy, 33 920 (6.7%) receiving low-intensity statin therapy, and 92 625 (18.2%) receiving no statins. During a mean follow-up of 492 days, there was a graded association between intensity of statin therapy and mortality, with 1-year mortality rates of 4.0% (5103 of 126 139) for those receiving high-intensity statin therapy, 4.8% (9703 of 200 709) for those receiving moderate-intensity statin therapy, 5.7% (1632 of 28 765) for those receiving low-intensity statin therapy, and 6.6% (4868 of 73 728) for those receiving no statin (P < .001). After adjusting for the propensity to receive high-intensity statins, the hazard ratio for mortality was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93) for those receiving high- vs moderate-intensity statins. The magnitude of benefit of high- vs moderate-intensity statins was similar, for an incident cohort hazard ratio of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.85-1.01). For patients aged 76 to 84 years, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.87-0.95). Patients treated with maximal doses of high-intensity statins had lower mortality (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94) compared with those receiving submaximal doses. Conclusions and Relevance We found a graded association between intensity of statin therapy and mortality in a national sample of patients with ASCVD. High-intensity statins were associated with a small but significant survival advantage compared with moderate-intensity statins, even among older adults. Maximal doses of high-intensity statins were associated with a further survival benefit.

Use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the Veterans Affairs Health System: Practice impact of the new cholesterol guidelines

BACKGROUND The November 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines recommend the use of high-intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We sought to determine how these guidelines are being adopted at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System and identify treatment gaps. METHODS We examined administrative data from the VA 12 months prior to the index dates of April 1, 2013, and after April 1, 2014, to identify patients ≤75 years of age with ≥2 codes for ASCVD. We identified those on high-intensity statin therapy (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, and simvastatin 80 mg) during the 6 months after the index date. RESULTS The study sample included 331,927 and 326,759 eligible adults with ASCVD before and after the release of the new guidelines, respectively. Overall, high-intensity statin use increased from 28% to 35% after guideline release. High-intensity statin use was lowest in Hispanics and Native Americans, although all groups showed an increase over time. Among those on low- or moderate-intensity statin therapy, 15.6% were intensified to a high-intensity statin after guideline release. Groups less likely to undergo statin intensification were older adults (odds ratio=0.78 for each 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.76-0.81), women (odds ratio=0.86, 95% CI 0.75-0.99), and certain minority groups. Academic teaching hospitals and hospitals on the West Coast were more likely to intensify statins after release of the new guidelines. CONCLUSIONS High-intensity statin use increased in the VA following release of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol treatment guidelines, although disparities persist for certain patient groups including older adults, women, and certain minority groups.

A systematic comparison of sugar content in low-fat vs regular versions of food

Obesity remains a significant public health concern. One of the primary messages from providers and health-care organizations is to eat healthier foods with lower fat. Many in the lay press, however, have suggested that lower fat versions of foods contain more sugar. To our knowledge, a systematic comparison of the sugar content in food with lower fat alternatives has not been performed. In this study, we compared fat free, low fat and regular versions of the same foods using data collected from the USDA National Nutrient Database. We found that the amount of sugar is higher in the low fat (that is, reduced calorie, light, low fat) and non-fat than ‘regular’ versions of tested items (Friedman P=0.00001, Wilcoxon P=0.0002 for low fat vs regular food and P=0.0003 for non-fat vs regular food). Our data support the general belief that food that is lower in fat may contain more sugar.

Variation in Use of Left Ventriculography in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System

Background— Contrast left ventriculography is a method of measuring left ventricular function usually performed at the discretion of the invasive cardiologist during cardiac catheterization. We sought to determine variation in the use of left ventriculography in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System. Methods and Results— We identified adult patients who underwent cardiac catheterization including coronary angiography between 2000 and 2009 in the VA Health Care System. We determined patient and hospital predictors of the use of left ventriculography as well as the variation in use across VA facilities. Results were validated using data from the VA’s Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program. Of 457 170 cardiac catheterization procedures among 336 853 patients, left ventriculography was performed on 263 695 (58%) patients. Use of left ventriculography decreased over time (64% in 2000 to 50% in 2009) and varied markedly across facilities (<1–>95% of cardiac catheterizations). Patient factors explained little of the large variation in use between facilities. When the cohort was restricted to those with an echocardiogram in the prior 30 days and no intervening event, left ventriculography was still performed in 50% of cases. Conclusions— There is large variation in the use of left ventriculography across VA facilities that is not explained by patient characteristics.

Impact of the Hospital to Home Initiative on Readmissions in the VA Health Care System.

Background: Hospital to Home (H2H) is a national quality improvement initiative sponsored by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and the American College of Cardiology, with the goal of reducing readmission for patients hospitalized with heart disease. We sought to determine the impact of H2H within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. Methods: Using a controlled interrupted time series, we determined the association of VA hospital enrollment in H2H with the primary outcome of 30-day all-cause readmission following a heart failure hospitalization. VA heart failure providers were surveyed to determine quality improvement projects initiated in response to H2H. Secondary outcomes included initiation of recommended H2H projects, follow-up within 7 days, and total hospital days at 30 days and 1 year. Results: Sixty-five of 104 VA hospitals (66%) enrolled in the national H2H initiative. Hospital characteristic associated with H2H enrollment included provision of tertiary care, academic affiliation, and greater use of home monitoring. There was no significant difference in mean 30-day readmission rates (20.0% ± 5.0% for H2H vs 19.3% ± 5.9% for non-H2H hospitals; P = .48) The mean fraction of patients with a cardiology visit within 7 days was slightly higher for H2H hospitals (3.0% ± 2.4% for H2H vs 2.0% ± 1.9% for non-H2H hospitals; P = .05). Patients discharged from H2H hospitals had fewer mean hospitals days during the following year (7.6% ± 2.6% for H2H vs 9.2% ± 3.0 for non-H2H; P = .01) early after launch of H2H, but the effect did not persist. Conclusions: VA hospitals enrolling in H2H had slightly more early follow-up in cardiology clinic but no difference in 30-day readmission rates compared with hospitals not enrolling in H2H.

Lack of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Measurement Following a High B-type Natriuretic Peptide Value.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to determine how often providers did not obtain a recommended measure of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following a high B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) value when the LVEF was not known to be low (<40%). Such patients may benefit from life-prolonging treatment. METHODS We identified consecutive patients (inpatient or outpatient) with a BNP value of at least 200 pg/mL within a single VA health care system (3 inpatient facilities and 8 community clinics) during a 10-month period (September 2008-June 2009). We performed chart review to determine results of any imaging study performed (inside or outside the health system) prior to or after the high BNP value. RESULTS Of the 296 patients with a high BNP, 212 were not known to have a low LVEF. Of these, 99 (47%) did not have the guideline recommended follow-up LVEF study. Among those that survived at least 6 months following BNP and a follow-up echocardiogram was indicated (no prior LVEF or prior LVEF was > 40%), mortality was 20% if an echocardiogram was performed within 6 months of the BNP and 27% if it was not performed within 6 months of BNP testing (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION Approximately half of patients with a high BNP and an LVEF not known to be low did not have a follow-up guideline recommended LVEF study and may have unrecognized heart failure. Our findings suggest that a trial is warranted of a clinical pathway where those patients with a high BNP and without appropriate follow-up are randomized to have their physician receive a notification of the high BNP value.