Readmission within 30 days after hospital discharge for common cardiovascular conditions such as heart failure and acute myocardial infarction is extremely common among older persons. To incentivize investment in reducing preventable rehospitalizations, the United States federal government has directed increasing financial penalties to hospitals with higher-than-expected 30-day readmission rates. Uncertainty exists, however, regarding the best approaches to reducing these adverse outcomes. In this review, we summarize the literature on predictors of 30-day readmission, the utility of risk prediction models, and strategies to reduce short-term readmission after hospitalization for heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. We report that few variables have been found to consistently predict the occurrence of 30-day readmission and that risk prediction models lack strong discriminative ability. We additionally report that the literature on interventions to reduce 30-day rehospitalization has significant limitations due to heterogeneity, susceptibility to bias, and lack of reporting on important contextual factors and details of program implementation. New information is characterizing the period after hospitalization as a time of high generalized risk, which has been termed the post-hospital syndrome. This framework for characterizing inherent post-discharge instability suggests new approaches to reducing readmissions.
In 1978 the federal government restricted research on prison and jail inmates in medical studies, the result of decades of unethical research in correctional institutions. We evaluated the impact this policy has had on studies of health outcomes in minority populations, particularly studies involving black men, who are disproportionately incarcerated. Specifically, we explored the effect of incarceration on follow-up rates of fourteen prospective clinical studies funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. We estimated that during the past three decades high rates of incarceration of black men may have accounted for up to 65 percent of the loss to follow-up among black men in these studies. The impact of incarceration was far less among white men, black women, and white women. These estimates suggest that the ability of those studies to examine racial disparities in health outcomes, as well as to understand the experience of this group, could be compromised. We believe that community-recruited subjects who are incarcerated should be allowed to continue participating in observational clinical research that poses minimal risk to participants.
Multiple studies claim that public place smoking bans are associated with reductions in smoking-related hospitalization rates. No national study using complete hospitalization counts by area that accounts for contemporaneous controls including state cigarette taxes has been conducted. We examine the association between county-level smoking-related hospitalization rates and comprehensive smoking bans in 28 states from 2001 to 2008. Differences-in-differences analysis measures changes in hospitalization rates before versus after introducing bans in bars, restaurants, and workplaces, controlling for cigarette taxes, adjusting for local health and provider characteristics. Smoking bans were not associated with acute myocardial infarction or heart failure hospitalizations, but lowered pneumonia hospitalization rates for persons ages 60 to 74 years. Higher cigarette taxes were associated with lower heart failure hospitalizations for all ages and fewer pneumonia hospitalizations for adults aged 60 to 74. Previous studies may have overestimated the relation between smoking bans and hospitalizations and underestimated the effects of cigarette taxes.
The Centers for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (CCORs) held a meeting to review how cardiovascular outcomes research had evolved in the decade since the NHLBI 2004 working group report and to consider future directions. The conference involved representatives from governmental agencies, outcomes research thought leaders, and public and private healthcare partners. The main purposes of this meeting were to: 1) advance collaborative high-yield, high impact outcomes research; 2) identify priorities and barriers to important cardiovascular outcomes research; and 3) define future needs for the field. This report highlights key topics covered during the meeting, including an examination of the recent history of outcomes research, an evaluation of the current academic climate, and a vision for the future of cardiovascular outcomes research.
Early evidence suggests that provisions of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 are associated with reductions in the total number of new national drug shortages. However, drugs frequently used in acute unscheduled care such as the care delivered in emergency departments may be increasingly affected by shortages. Our estimates, based on reported national drug shortages from 2001 to 2014 collected by the University of Utah's Drug Information Service, show that although the number of new annual shortages has decreased since the act's passage, half of all drug shortages in the study period involved acute care drugs. Shortages affecting acute care drugs became increasingly frequent and prolonged compared with non–acute care drugs (median duration of 242 versus 173 days, respectively). These results suggest that the drug supply for many acutely and critically ill patients in the United States remains vulnerable despite federal efforts.
The study protocol, publications, full study report detailing all analyses, and participant-level dataset constitute the main documentation of methods and results for health research. However, journal publications are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. The protocol, full study report, and participant-level dataset are rarely available. The quality of information provided in study protocols and reports is variable and often incomplete. Inaccessibility of full information for the vast majority of studies wastes billions of dollars, introduces bias, and has a detrimental impact on patient care and research. To help improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. Firstly, it is important that academic institutions and funders reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Secondly, standards for the content of protocols, full study reports, and data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should implement and enforce policies supporting study registration and availability of journal publications, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.
BACKGROUND: Low-risk limits recommended for alcohol consumption vary substantially across different national guidelines. To define thresholds associated with lowest risk for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, we studied individual-participant data from 599 912 current drinkers without previous cardiovascular disease. METHODS: We did a combined analysis of individual-participant data from three large-scale data sources in 19 high-income countries (the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration, EPIC-CVD, and the UK Biobank). We characterised dose-response associations and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) per 100 g per week of alcohol (12·5 units per week) across 83 prospective studies, adjusting at least for study or centre, age, sex, smoking, and diabetes. To be eligible for the analysis, participants had to have information recorded about their alcohol consumption amount and status (ie, non-drinker vs current drinker), plus age, sex, history of diabetes and smoking status, at least 1 year of follow-up after baseline, and no baseline history of cardiovascular disease. The main analyses focused on current drinkers, whose baseline alcohol consumption was categorised into eight predefined groups according to the amount in grams consumed per week. We assessed alcohol consumption in relation to all-cause mortality, total cardiovascular disease, and several cardiovascular disease subtypes. We corrected HRs for estimated long-term variability in alcohol consumption using 152 640 serial alcohol assessments obtained some years apart (median interval 5·6 years [5th-95th percentile 1·04-13·5]) from 71 011 participants from 37 studies. FINDINGS: In the 599 912 current drinkers included in the analysis, we recorded 40 310 deaths and 39 018 incident cardiovascular disease events during 5·4 million person-years of follow-up. For all-cause mortality, we recorded a positive and curvilinear association with the level of alcohol consumption, with the minimum mortality risk around or below 100 g per week. Alcohol consumption was roughly linearly associated with a higher risk of stroke (HR per 100 g per week higher consumption 1·14, 95% CI, 1·10-1·17), coronary disease excluding myocardial infarction (1·06, 1·00-1·11), heart failure (1·09, 1·03-1·15), fatal hypertensive disease (1·24, 1·15-1·33); and fatal aortic aneurysm (1·15, 1·03-1·28). By contrast, increased alcohol consumption was log-linearly associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0·94, 0·91-0·97). In comparison to those who reported drinking >0-≤100 g per week, those who reported drinking >100-≤200 g per week, >200-≤350 g per week, or >350 g per week had lower life expectancy at age 40 years of approximately 6 months, 1-2 years, or 4-5 years, respectively. INTERPRETATION: In current drinkers of alcohol in high-income countries, the threshold for lowest risk of all-cause mortality was about 100 g/week. For cardiovascular disease subtypes other than myocardial infarction, there were no clear risk thresholds below which lower alcohol consumption stopped being associated with lower disease risk. These data support limits for alcohol consumption that are lower than those recommended in most current guidelines. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, European Union Framework 7, and European Research Council.