Nurse Management of Hypertension in Rural Western Kenya: Implementation Research to Optimize Delivery

Background: Hypertension is the leading global risk factor for mortality. Hypertension treatment and control rates are low worldwide, and insufficient human resource capacity is among the contributing factors. Thus, a critical component of hypertension management is to develop novel and effective solutions to the human resources challenge. One potential solution is task redistribution and nurse management of hypertension in these settings. Objectives: The aim of this study is to investigate whether nurses can effectively reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients in rural western Kenya and, by extension, throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: An initial phase of qualitative inquiry will assess facilitators and barriers of nurse management of hypertension. In addition, we will perform usability and feasibility testing of a novel, electronic tablet-based integrated decision-support and record-keeping tool for the nurses. An impact evaluation of a pilot program for nurse-based management of hypertension will be performed. Finally, a needs-based workforce estimation model will be used to estimate the nurse workforce requirements for stable, long-term treatment of hypertension throughout western Kenya. Findings: The primary outcome measure of the impact evaluation will be the change in systolic blood pressure of hypertensive individuals assigned to nurse-based management after 1 year of follow-up. The workforce estimation modeling output will be the full-time equivalents of nurses. Conclusions: This study will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness of strategies to optimize task redistribution and nurse-based management of hypertension that can be applicable to noncommunicable disease management in low- and middle-income countries

Posttransplant survival is not diminished in heart transplant recipients bridged with implantable left ventricular assist devices

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare posttransplantation morbidity and mortality in orthotopic heart transplant recipients bridged to transplant with a left ventricular assist device with nonbridged recipients. To account for potential differences across device types, we stratified bridge-to-transplant recipients by type of ventricular assist device: extracorporeal (EXTRA), paracorporeal (PARA), and intracorporeal (INTRA).MethodsThe United Network for Organ Sharing provided de-identified patient-level data. The study population included 10,668 orthotopic heart transplant recipients aged 18 years old or older and undergoing transplantation between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2006. Follow-up data were provided through August 3, 2008, with a mean follow-up time of 3.17 ± 2.15 years (range, 0–8.11 years). The primary outcome was actuarial posttransplant graft survival. Other outcomes of interest included infection, stroke, and dialysis during the transplant hospitalization; primary graft failure at 30 days; transplant hospitalization length of stay; and long-term complications including diabetes mellitus, transplant coronary artery disease, and chronic dialysis. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and overall graft survival, and multivariable logistic regression analysis (backward, P < .15) was used to determine the relationship between groups and secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn multivariable Cox regression analysis, when compared with the nonbridged group, risk-adjusted greater than 90-day graft survival was diminished among the EXTRA group (hazard ratio = 3.54, 2.28–5.51, P < .001), but not the INTRA group (1.04, 0.719–1.51, P = .834) or the PARA group (1.06, 0.642–1.76, P = .809). There were no significant differences in risk-adjusted graft survival across the 4 groups during the 90-days to 1-year or 1- to 5-year intervals. However, at more than 5 years, risk-adjusted graft survival in the INTRA group (0.389, 0.205–0.738, P = .004) was better than in the nonbridged group. The EXTRA, PARA, and INTRA groups all experienced increased risks of infection. The EXTRA group had increased risks of dialysis, stroke, and primary graft failure at 30 days, whereas neither the PARA nor the INTRA group differed from the nonbridged group. Long-term complications did not differ by group.ConclusionThe use of implantable left ventricular assist devices as bridges to transplantation, including both intracorporeal and paracorporeal devices, is not associated with diminished posttransplant survival. However, 90-day survival was diminished in recipients bridged with extracorporeal devices

Designing comparative effectiveness trials of surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: Experience of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

ObjectiveSince the introduction of the cut-and-sew Cox maze procedure for atrial fibrillation, there has been substantial innovation in techniques for ablation. Use of alternative energy sources for ablation simplified the procedure and has resulted in dramatic increase in the number of patients with atrial fibrillation treated by surgical ablation. Despite its increasingly widespread adoption, there is lack of rigorous clinical evidence to establish this procedure as an effective clinical therapy.MethodsThis article describes a comparative effectiveness randomized trial, supported by the Cardiothoracic Surgical Clinical Trials Network, of surgical ablation with left atrial appendage closure versus left atrial appendage closure alone in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing mitral valve surgery. Nested within this trial is a further randomized comparison of 2 different lesions sets: pulmonary vein isolation and the full maze lesion set.ResultsThis article addresses trial design challenges, including how best to characterize the target population, operationalize freedom from atrial fibrillation as a primary end point, account for the impact of antiarrhythmic drugs, and measure and analyze secondary end points, such as postoperative atrial fibrillation load.ConclusionsThis article concludes by discussing how insights that emerge from this trial may affect surgical practice and guide future research in this area

Impact of Socioeconomic Status Measures on Hospital Profiling in New York City

BackgroundCurrent 30-day readmission models used by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the purpose of hospital-level comparisons lack measures of socioeconomic status (SES). We examined whether the inclusion of an SES measure in 30-day congestive heart failure readmission models changed hospital risk-standardized readmission rates in New York City (NYC) hospitals.Methods and resultsUsing a Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS)-like model, we estimated 30-day hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates by adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions. Next, we examined how hospital risk-standardized readmission rates changed relative to the NYC mean with inclusion of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-validated SES index score. In a secondary analysis, we examined whether inclusion of the AHRQ SES index score in 30-day readmission models disproportionately impacted the risk-standardized readmission rates of minority-serving hospitals. Higher AHRQ SES scores, indicators of higher SES, were associated with lower odds (0.99) of 30-day readmission (P&lt;0.019). The addition of the AHRQ SES index did not change the model's C statistic (0.63). After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 hospital changed status from worse than the NYC average to no different than the NYC average. After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 NYC minority-serving hospital was reclassified from worse to no different than average.ConclusionsAlthough patients with higher SES were less likely to be admitted, the impact of SES on readmission was small. In NYC, inclusion of the AHRQ SES score in a CMS-based model did not impact hospital-level profiling based on 30-day readmission

Impact of Socioeconomic Status Measures on Hospital Profiling in New York City

BackgroundCurrent 30-day readmission models used by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the purpose of hospital-level comparisons lack measures of socioeconomic status (SES). We examined whether the inclusion of an SES measure in 30-day congestive heart failure readmission models changed hospital risk-standardized readmission rates in New York City (NYC) hospitals.Methods and resultsUsing a Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS)-like model, we estimated 30-day hospital-level risk-standardized readmission rates by adjusting for age, sex, and comorbid conditions. Next, we examined how hospital risk-standardized readmission rates changed relative to the NYC mean with inclusion of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-validated SES index score. In a secondary analysis, we examined whether inclusion of the AHRQ SES index score in 30-day readmission models disproportionately impacted the risk-standardized readmission rates of minority-serving hospitals. Higher AHRQ SES scores, indicators of higher SES, were associated with lower odds (0.99) of 30-day readmission (P&lt;0.019). The addition of the AHRQ SES index did not change the model's C statistic (0.63). After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 hospital changed status from worse than the NYC average to no different than the NYC average. After adjustment for the AHRQ SES index, 1 NYC minority-serving hospital was reclassified from worse to no different than average.ConclusionsAlthough patients with higher SES were less likely to be admitted, the impact of SES on readmission was small. In NYC, inclusion of the AHRQ SES score in a CMS-based model did not impact hospital-level profiling based on 30-day readmission

Supplemental Data HOPE Trail_ Dryad

Supplemental Tables for the HOPE Trail Manuscrip