Do countries or hospitals with longer hospital stays for acute heart failure have lower readmission rates?: findings from ASCEND-HF

Background—Hospital readmission is an important clinical outcome of patients with heart failure. Its relation to length of stay for the initial hospitalization is not clear.<p></p> Methods and Results—We used hierarchical modeling of data from a clinical trial to examine variations in length of stay across countries and across hospitals in the United States and its association with readmission within 30 days of randomization. Main outcomes included associations between country-level length of stay and readmission rates, after adjustment for patient-level case mix; and associations between length of stay and readmission rates across sites in the United States. Across 27 countries with 389 sites and 6848 patients, mean length of stay ranged from 4.9 to 14.6 days (6.1 days in the United States). Rates of all-cause readmission ranged from 2.5% to 25.0% (17.8% in the United States). There was an inverse correlation between country-level mean length of stay and readmission (r=–0.52; P<0.01). After multivariable adjustment, each additional inpatient day across countries was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause readmission (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.98; P=0.02) and heart failure readmission (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99; P=0.03). Similar trends were observed across US study sites concerning readmission for any cause (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.00; P=0.06) and readmission for heart failure (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.80–1.01; P=0.07). Across countries and across US sites, longer median length of stay was independently associated with lower risk of readmission.<p></p> Conclusions—Countries with longer length of stay for heart failure hospitalizations had significantly lower rates of readmission within 30 days of randomization. These findings may have implications for developing strategies to prevent readmission, defining quality measures, and designing clinical trials in acute heart failure.<p></p&gt

Cause of Death in Patients With Acute Heart Failure: Insights From RELAX-AHF-2

Objectives: This study sought to better understand the discrepant results of 2 trials of serelaxin on acute heart failure (AHF) and short-term mortality after AHF by analyzing causes of death of patients in the RELAX-AHF-2 (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF-2) trial. Background: Patients with AHF continue to suffer significant short-term mortality, but limited systematic analyses of causes of death in this patient population are available. Methods: Adjudicated cause of death of patients in RELAX-AHF-2, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of serelaxin in patients with AHF across the spectrum of ejection fraction (EF), was analyzed. Results: By 180 days of follow-up, 11.5% of patients in RELAX-AHF-2 died, primarily due to heart failure (HF) (38% of all deaths). Unlike RELAX-AHF, there was no apparent effect of treatment with serelaxin on any category of cause of death. Older patients (≥75 years) had higher rates of mortality (14.2% vs. 8.8%) and noncardiovascular (CV) death (27% vs. 19%) compared to younger patients. Patients with preserved EF (≥50%) had lower rates of HF-related mortality (30% vs. 40%) but higher non-CV mortality (36% vs. 20%) compared to patients with reduced EF. Conclusions: Despite previous data suggesting benefit of serelaxin in AHF, treatment with serelaxin was not found to improve overall mortality or have an effect on any category of cause of death in RELAX-AHF-2. Careful adjudication of events in the serelaxin trials showed that older patients and those with preserved EF had fewer deaths from HF or sudden death and more deaths from other CV causes and from noncardiac causes. (Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Serelaxin When Added to Standard Therapy in AHF [RELAX-AHF-2]; NCT01870778) © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundatio

When Can We Rely on Real‐World Evidence to Evaluate New Medical Treatments?

Concerns regarding both the limited generalizability and the slow pace of traditional randomized trials have led to calls for greater use of real-world evidence (RWE) in the evaluation of new treatments or products. The RWE label has been used to refer to a variety of departures from the methods of traditional randomized controlled trials. Recognizing this complexity and potential confusion, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine convened a series of workshops to clarify and address questions regarding the use of RWE to evaluate new medical treatments. Those workshops identified three specific dimensions in which RWE studies might differ from traditional clinical trials: use of real-world data (data extracted from health system records or data captured by mobile devices), delivery of real-world treatment (open-label treatments delivered in community settings by community practitioners), and real-world treatment assignment (including nonrandomized comparisons and variations on random assignment such as before-after or stepped-wedge designs). For any RWE study, decisions regarding each of these dimensions depends on the specific research question, characteristics of the potential study settings, and characteristics of the settings where study results would be applied