IMPORTANCE Earlier administration of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in acute ischemic stroke is associated with reduced mortality by the time of hospital discharge and better functional outcomes at 3 months. However, it remains unclear whether shorter door-to-needle times translate into better long-term outcomes.OBJECTIVE To examine whether shorter door-to-needle times with intravenous tPA for acute ischemic stroke are associated with improved long-term outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who were treated for acute ischemic stroke with intravenous tPA within 4.5 hours from the time they were last known to be well at Get With The Guidelines-Stroke participating hospitals between

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Black and Hispanic patients are less likely than white patients to use oral anticoagulants for atrial fibrillation. Little is known about racial/ethnic differences in use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To assess racial/ethnic differences in the use of oral anticoagulants, particularly DOACs, in patients with atrial fibrillation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used data from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation II, a prospective, US-based registry of outpatients with nontransient atrial fibrillation 21 years and older who were followed up from February 2013 to July 2016. Data were analyzed from February 2017 to February 2018. EXPOSURES Self-reported race/ethnicity as white, black, or Hispanic. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was use of any oral anticoagulant, particularly DOACs. Secondary outcomes included the quality of anticoagulation received and oral anticoagulant discontinuation at 1 year. RESULTS Of 12 417 patients, 11 100 were white individuals (88.6%), 646 were black individuals (5.2%), and 671 were Hispanic individuals (5.4%) with atrial fibrillation. After adjusting for clinical features, black individuals were less likely to receive any oral anticoagulant than white individuals (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.56, 0.99]) and less likely to receive DOACs if an anticoagulant was prescribed (aOR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.49-0.83]). After further controlling for socioeconomic factors, oral anticoagulant use was no longer significantly different in black individuals (aOR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.59-1.04]); among patients using oral anticoagulants, DOAC use remained significantly lower in black individuals (aOR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.95]). There was no significant difference between white and Hispanic groups in use of oral anticoagulants. Among patients receiving warfarin, the median time in therapeutic range was lower in black individuals (57.1% [IQR, 39.9%-72.5%]) and Hispanic individuals (51.7% [interquartile range {IQR}, 39.1%-66.7%]) than white individuals (67.1% [IQR, 51.8%-80.6%]; P < .001). Black and Hispanic individuals treated with DOACs were more likely to receive inappropriate dosing than white individuals (black patients, 61 of 394 [15.5%]; Hispanic patients, 74 of 409 [18.1%]; white patients, 1003 of 7988 [12.6%]; P = .01). One-year persistence on oral anticoagulants was the same across groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE After controlling for clinical and socioeconomic factors, black individuals were less likely than white individuals to receive DOACs for atrial fibrillation, with no difference between white and Hispanic groups. When atrial fibrillation was treated, the quality of anticoagulant use was lower in black and Hispanic individuals. Identifying modifiable causes of these disparities could improve the quality of care in atrial fibrillation.

BackgroundDabigatran is a novel oral anticoagulant approved for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. Adoption patterns of this new agent in community practice are unknown.Methods and ResultsWe studied patterns of dabigatran use among patients enrolled in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT‐AF) Registry between June 2010 and August 2011 and followed for 12 months. Among 9974 atrial fibrillation patients included, 1217 (12%) were treated with dabigatran during the study. Overall, patients receiving dabigatran were younger (median age 72 versus 75 years, P<0.0001), more likely to be white (92% versus 89%, P=0.005), more likely to have private insurance (33% versus 25%, P<0.0001), and less likely to have prior cardiovascular disease (4% versus 33%, P<0.0001). They had more new‐onset atrial fibrillation (8.8% versus 4.1%, P<0.0001), lower CHADS2 scores (estimated risk based on the presence of congestive heart failure, hypertension, aged ≥75 years, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack; mean 2.0 versus 2.3, P<0.0001), and lower Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation scores (mean 2.4 versus 2.8, P<0.0001). More than half (n=14/25, 56%) of patients with severe kidney disease were not prescribed reduced dosing, whereas 10% (n=91/920) with preserved renal function received lower dosing. Among patients not on dabigatran at baseline, 8% had dabigatran initiated during follow‐up. Patient education was significantly associated with switching from warfarin to dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio for postgraduate 1.73, P=0.007), whereas antiarrhythmic drug use significantly correlated with de novo adoption of dabigatran (adjusted odds ratio 2.4, P<0.0001).ConclusionsPatients receiving dabigatran were younger and at a lower risk of stroke and bleeding. Patients appeared to drive switching from warfarin, whereas clinical characteristics influenced de novo start of dabigatran. These data suggest cautious early uptake of dabigatran, and more careful attention to dosing adjustments is warranted.Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: Clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

No abstract

Background: The Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire has recently been validated to measure the impact of atrial fibrillation on quality of life, but a clinically important difference in AFEQT score has not been well defined. Methods and Results: To determine the clinically important difference in overall AFEQT (score range= 0 [worst] to 100 [best]) and selected subscales, we analyzed data in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry, a United States-based outpatient atrial fibrillation registry. AFEQT was assessed at baseline and 1 year in a subset of 1347 ORBIT-AF patients from 80 US sites participating in ORBIT-AF from June 2010 to August 2011. The mean change method was used to relate changes in 1-year AFEQT scores to clinically important changes in the physician assessment of European Heart Rhythm Association functional status (1 class improvement and separately 1 class deterioration). Clinically important differences and 95% CI corresponding to either a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement or deterioration were 5.4 (3.6–7.2) and −4.2 (−6.9 to −1.5) AFEQT points, respectively. Similarly, clinically important difference values were seen for a 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class improvement for the AFEQT subscales Activities of Daily Living and Symptoms: 5.1 (2.5–7.6) and 7.1 (5.3–9.0) AFEQT points, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the anchor of 1 European Heart Rhythm Association class change, changes in AFEQT score of + or −5 points are clinically important changes in patients’ health. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

IMPORTANCE Guidelines for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or fibrinolysis. Among patients with STEMI who require interhospital transfer, it is unclear how reperfusion strategy selection and outcomes vary with interhospital drive times. OBJECTIVE To assess the association of estimated interhospital drive times with reperfusion strategy selection among transferred patients with STEMI in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We identified 22 481 patients eligible for pPCI or fibrinolysis who were transferred from 1771 STEMI referring centers to 366 STEMI receiving centers in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines database between July 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESIn-hospital mortality and major bleeding. RESULTSThe median estimated interhospital drive time was 57 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 36-88 minutes). When the estimated drive time exceeded 30 minutes, only 42.6% of transfer patients treated with pPCI achieved the first door-to-balloon time within 120 minutes. Only 52.7% of eligible patients with a drive time exceeding 60 minutes received fibrinolysis. Among 15 437 patients with estimated drive times of 30 to 120 minutes who were eligible for fibrinolysis or pPCI, 5296 (34.3%) received pretransfer fibrinolysis, with a median door-to-needle time of 34 minutes (IQR, 23-53 minutes). After fibrinolysis, the median time to transfer to the STEMI receiving center was 49 minutes (IQR, 34-69 minutes), and 97.1% underwent follow-up angiography. Patients treated with fibrinolysis vs pPCI had no significant mortality difference (3.7% vs 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36) but had higher bleeding risk (10.7% vs 9.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn the United States, neither fibrinolysis nor pPCI is being optimally used to achieve guideline-recommended reperfusion targets. For patients who are unlikely to receive timely pPCI, pretransfer fibrinolysis, followed by early transfer for angiography, may be a reperfusion option when potential benefits of timely reperfusion outweigh bleeding risk.

ObjectivesTo compare management of patients with acute non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in three developed countries with national ongoing registries.BackgroundResults from clinical trials suggest significant variation in care across the world. However, international comparisons in “real world” registries are limited.MethodsWe compared the use of in-hospital procedures and discharge medications for patients admitted with NSTEMI from 2007 to 2010 using the unselective MINAP/NICOR [England and Wales (UK); n = 137,009], the unselective SWEDEHEART/RIKS-HIA (Sweden; n = 45,069), and the selective ACTION Registry-GWTG/NCDR [United States (US); n = 147,438] clinical registries.ResultsPatients enrolled among the three registries were generally similar except those in the US who were younger but had higher rates of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, prior heart failure, and prior MI than in Sweden or in UK. Angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were performed more often in the US (76% and 44%) and Sweden (65% and 42%) relative to the UK (32% and 22%). Discharge betablockers were also prescribed more often in the US (89%) and Sweden (89%) than in the UK (76%). In contrast, discharge statins, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), and dual antiplatelet agents (among those not receiving PCI) were higher in the UK (92%, 79%, and 71%) than in the US (85%, 65%, 41%) and Sweden (81%, 69%, and 49%).ConclusionsThe care for patients with NSTEMI differed substantially among the three countries. These differences in care among countries provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research as well as identify opportunities for global quality improvement.