Browsing by Author "Hess, Paul L"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Addressing barriers to optimal oral anticoagulation use and persistence among patients with atrial fibrillation: Proceedings, Washington, DC, December 3-4, 2012.
    (American heart journal, 2014-09) Hess, Paul L; Mirro, Michael J; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Eikelboom, John W; Al-Khatib, Sana M; Hylek, Elaine M; Bosworth, Hayden B; Gersh, Bernard J; Singer, Daniel E; Flaker, Greg; Mega, Jessica L; Peterson, Eric D; Rumsfeld, John S; Steinberg, Benjamin A; Kakkar, Ajay K; Califf, Robert M; Granger, Christopher B; Atrial Fibrillation Think-Tank Participants
    Approximately half of patients with atrial fibrillation and with risk factors for stroke are not treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC), whether it be with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or novel OACs (NOACs); and of those treated, many discontinue treatment. Leaders from academia, government, industry, and professional societies convened in Washington, DC, on December 3-4, 2012, to identify barriers to optimal OAC use and adherence and to generate potential solutions. Participants identified a broad range of barriers, including knowledge gaps about stroke risk and the relative risks and benefits of anticoagulant therapies; lack of awareness regarding the potential use of NOAC agents for VKA-unsuitable patients; lack of recognition of expanded eligibility for OAC; lack of availability of reversal agents and the difficulty of anticoagulant effect monitoring for the NOACs; concerns with the bleeding risk of anticoagulant therapy, especially with the NOACs and particularly in the setting of dual antiplatelet therapy; suboptimal time in therapeutic range for VKA; and costs and insurance coverage. Proposed solutions were to define reasons for oral anticoagulant underuse classified in ways that can guide intervention and improve use, to increase awareness of stroke risk as well as the benefits and risks of OAC use via educational initiatives and feedback mechanisms, to better define the role of VKA in the current therapeutic era including eligibility and ineligibility for different anticoagulant therapies, to identify NOAC reversal agents and monitoring strategies and make knowledge regarding their use publicly available, to minimize the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy and concomitant OAC where possible, to improve time in therapeutic range for VKA, to leverage observational data sets to refine understanding of OAC use and outcomes in general practice, and to better align health system incentives.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Follow-up of patients with new cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: are experts' recommendations implemented in routine clinical practice?
    (Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2013-02) Al-Khatib, Sana M; Mi, Xiaojuan; Wilkoff, Bruce L; Qualls, Laura G; Frazier-Mills, Camille; Setoguchi, Soko; Hess, Paul L; Curtis, Lesley H

    Background

    A 2008 expert consensus statement outlined the minimum frequency of follow-up of patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs).

    Methods and results

    We studied 38 055 Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2009. The main outcome measure was variation of follow-up by patient factors and year of device implantation. We determined the number of patients who were eligible for and attended an in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks, 0 to 16 weeks, and 1 year after implantation. Among eligible patients, 42.4% had an initial in-person visit within 2 to 12 weeks. This visit was significantly more common among white patients than black patients and patients of other races (43.0% versus 36.8% versus 40.5%; P<0.001). Follow-up within 2 to 12 weeks improved from 40.3% in 2005 to 55.1% in 2009 (P<0.001 for trend). The rate of follow-up within 0 to 16 weeks was 65.1% and improved considerably from 2005 to 2009 (62.3%-79.6%; P<0.001 for trend). Within 1 year, 78.0% of the overall population had at least 1 in-person CIED follow-up visit.

    Conclusions

    Although most Medicare beneficiaries who received a new CIED between 2005 and 2009 did not have an initial in-person CIED follow-up visit within 2 to 12 weeks after device implantation, the rate of initial follow-up improved appreciably over time. This CIED follow-up visit was significantly more common in white patients than in patients of other races.