Effect of Cardiogenic Shock Hospital Volume on Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity, and mortality rates approach 40% to 60%. Treatment for CS requires an aggressive, sophisticated, complex, goal‐oriented, therapeutic regimen focused on early revascularization and adjunctive supportive therapies, suggesting that hospitals with greater CS volume may provide better care. The association between CS hospital volume and inpatient mortality for CS is unclear. Methods and Results: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to examine 533 179 weighted patient discharges from 2675 hospitals with CS from 2004 to 2011 and divided them into quartiles of mean annual hospital CS case volume. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Multivariate adjustments were performed to account for severity of illness, relevant comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and differences in treatment. Compared with the highest volume quartile, the adjusted odds ratio for inpatient mortality for persons admitted to hospitals in the lowest‐volume quartile (≤27 weighted cases per year) was 1.27 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.40), whereas for admission to hospitals in the low‐volume and medium‐volume quartiles, the odds ratios were 1.20 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.32) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.24), respectively. Similarly, improved survival was observed across quartiles, with an adjusted inpatient mortality incidence of 41.97% (95% CI 40.87 to 43.08) for hospitals with the lowest volume of CS cases and a drop to 37.01% (95% CI 35.11 to 38.96) for hospitals with the highest volume of CS cases. Analysis of treatments offered between hospital quartiles revealed that the centers with volumes in the highest quartile demonstrated significantly higher numbers of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or intra‐aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. A similar relationship was demonstrated with the use of mechanical circulatory support (ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), for which there was significantly higher use in the higher volume quartiles. Conclusions: We demonstrated an association between lower CS case volume and higher mortality. There is more frequent use of both standard supportive and revascularization techniques at the higher volume centers. Future directions may include examining whether early stabilization and transfer improve outcomes of patients with CS who are admitted to lower volume centers

Markers of Decongestion, Dyspnea Relief, and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure

Background Congestion is a primary driver of symptoms in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), and relief of congestion is a critical goal of therapy. Monitoring of response to therapy through the assessment of daily weights and net fluid loss is the current standard of care, yet the relationship between commonly used markers of decongestion and both patient reported symptom relief and clinical outcomes are unknown. Methods and Results We performed a retrospective analysis of the randomized clinical trial -Diuretic Optimization Strategy Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure (DOSE-AHF), enrolling patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). We assessed the relationship between 3 markers of decongestion at 72 hours—weight loss, net fluid loss and % reduction in serum NT-proBNP level—and relief of symptoms as defined by the dyspnea visual analog scale area under the curve (VAS AUC). We also determined the relationship between each marker of decongestion and 60-day clinical outcomes defined as time to death, first re-hospitalization or ER visit. Mean age was 66 years, mean EF was 35% and 27% had EF ≥50%. Of the 3 measures of decongestion assessed, only % reduction in NT-proBNP was significantly associated with symptom relief (r=0.13, P = 0.04). There was no correlation between either weight loss or net fluid loss and symptom relief, (r=0.04, P=0.54 and r=0.07, P=0.27, respectively). Favorable changes in each of the 3 markers of decongestion were associated with improvement in time to death, re-hospitalization or ED visit at 60 days [weight: HR 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.85, 0.97) per 4 lbs. weight lost; fluid HR 0.94 (0.90, 0.99) per 1000mL fluid loss; NT-proBNP HR 0.95 (0.91, 0.99) per 10% reduction]. These associations were unchanged after multivariable adjustment with the exception that % reduction in NT-proBNP was no longer a significant predictor (HR 0.97; 0.93, 1.02). Patients with 2 or 3 markers of decongestion (above the median value for each marker) had improved clinical outcomes versus those with 0 or 1 marker above the median value (39.0% versus 53.8%; P=0.03). Conclusions Weight loss, fluid loss and NT-proBNP reduction at 72 hours are poorly correlated with dyspnea relief. However, favorable improvements in each of the 3 markers were associated with improved clinical outcomes at 60 days. These data suggest the need for ongoing research to understand the relationships between symptom relief, congestion, and outcomes in patients with ADHF

Activities and Compensation of Advanced Heart Failure Specialists: Results of the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Survey.

BackgroundIn the current era, where advanced heart failure (AHF) has become an American Board of Internal Medicine-certified subspecialty, new data are needed to benchmark and value levels of clinical effort performed by AHF specialists (AHFMDs).Methods and resultsA 36-question survey was sent to 728 AHFMDs, members of the Heart Failure Society of America, and 224 (31%) responded. Overall, 56% worked in academic medical centers (AMCs) and were younger (48 ± 9 y vs 52 ± 10 y; P < .01) and were represented by a higher proportion of women (34% vs 21%, P < .01) compared with non-AMCs. The percentage of time in clinical care was lower in AMCs (64 ± 19% vs 78 ± 18%; P = .002), with similar concentration on evaluation and management services (79 ± 18% in AMCs vs 72 ± 18 % in non-AMCs; P = NS). The majority of nonclinical time was spent in program administration (10% in both AMCs and non-AMCs) and education/research (15% in AMC vs 5% in non-AMCs). Although 69% of respondents were compensated by work-relative value units (wRVUs), only a small percentage knew their target or the amount of RVUs generated. The mean annual wRVUs generated were lower in AMCs compared to non-AMCs (5,452 ± 1,961 vs 9,071 ± 3,484; P < .001). The annual compensation in AMCs was lower than in non-AMCs (45% vs 10% <$250,000 and 17$350,000; P < .001) and the satisfaction with compensation was higher in non-AMCs.ConclusionsAHFMDs' compensation is largely dependent by practice type (AMC vs non-AMC) and clinical productivity as measured by wRVUs. These data provide an opportunity for benchmarking work effort and compensation for AHFMDs, allowing distinction from segments of cardiologists with greater opportunity to accrue procedural wRVUs. They also show several differences between AMCs and non-AMCs that should be considered when formulating work assignment and compensation for AHFMDs

Activities and Compensation of Advanced Heart Failure Specialists: Results of the Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA) Survey

BackgroundIn the current era, where advanced heart failure (AHF) has become an American Board of Internal Medicine-certified subspecialty, new data are needed to benchmark and value levels of clinical effort performed by AHF specialists (AHFMDs).Methods and resultsA 36-question survey was sent to 728 AHFMDs, members of the Heart Failure Society of America, and 224 (31%) responded. Overall, 56% worked in academic medical centers (AMCs) and were younger (48 ± 9 y vs 52 ± 10 y; P < .01) and were represented by a higher proportion of women (34% vs 21%, P < .01) compared with non-AMCs. The percentage of time in clinical care was lower in AMCs (64 ± 19% vs 78 ± 18%; P = .002), with similar concentration on evaluation and management services (79 ± 18% in AMCs vs 72 ± 18 % in non-AMCs; P = NS). The majority of nonclinical time was spent in program administration (10% in both AMCs and non-AMCs) and education/research (15% in AMC vs 5% in non-AMCs). Although 69% of respondents were compensated by work-relative value units (wRVUs), only a small percentage knew their target or the amount of RVUs generated. The mean annual wRVUs generated were lower in AMCs compared to non-AMCs (5,452 ± 1,961 vs 9,071 ± 3,484; P < .001). The annual compensation in AMCs was lower than in non-AMCs (45% vs 10% <$250,000 and 17$350,000; P < .001) and the satisfaction with compensation was higher in non-AMCs.ConclusionsAHFMDs' compensation is largely dependent by practice type (AMC vs non-AMC) and clinical productivity as measured by wRVUs. These data provide an opportunity for benchmarking work effort and compensation for AHFMDs, allowing distinction from segments of cardiologists with greater opportunity to accrue procedural wRVUs. They also show several differences between AMCs and non-AMCs that should be considered when formulating work assignment and compensation for AHFMDs

Patient characteristics from a regional multicenter database of acute decompensated heart failure in Asia Pacific (ADHERE International-Asia Pacific)

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization. Although a number of multicenter international HF hospital registries have been published, there are limited data for the Asia Pacific region. Methods: ADHERE (ie, Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Registry) International-Asia Pacific is an electronic web-based observational database of 10,171 patients hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of HF from 8 Asia-Pacific countries between January 2006 and December 2008. Results: The median age (67 years) varied by more than 2 decades across the region. Fifty-seven percent of patients were male. Ninety percent of patients were Asian and 8.4% were white. Dyspnea was the presenting symptom in 95%, with 80% having documented rales. During the index hospitalization, left ventricular function was assessed in 50%, and intravenous therapies included diuretics (85%), vasodilators (14%), and positive inotropes (15%). In-hospital mortality was 4.8%. Discharge medications included angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (63%), β-blockers (41%), and aldosterone antagonists (31%). Conclusions: Compared with other multicenter registries, patients hospitalized with acute HF in the Asia Pacific region tend to present with more severe clinical symptoms and signs and are younger, especially in countries at an earlier stage in their epidemiological transition. Echocardiography and disease-modifying medications are used less often, highlighting potential opportunities to improve outcomes