Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States. National programs, such as the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, facilitate assessments of the quality of care and outcomes for broad populations of patients with cardiovascular disease. This report provides data for 2014 from 4 National Cardiovascular Data Registry hospital quality programs: 1) CathPCI (Diagnostic Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (667,424 procedures performed in 1,612 hospitals); 2) ICD Registry for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (158,649 procedures performed in 1,715 hospitals); 3) ACTION-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network-Get With The Guidelines) for acute coronary syndromes (182,903 patients admitted to 907 hospitals); and 4) IMPACT (Improving Pediatric and Adult Congenital Treatment) for cardiac catheterization and intervention for pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (20,169 procedures in 76 hospitals). The report provides perspectives on the demographic and clinical characteristics of enrolled patients, characteristics of participating centers, and selected measures of processes and outcomes of care in these programs.

No abstract

Aims Guidelines for management of patients with heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction [HFmrEF; left ventricular EF (LVEF) 41–49%] do not exist. Disagreement exists whether HFmrEF should be considered a distinct group. The aim of this study is to examine characteristics of patients with HFmrEF with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; LVEF ≤ 40%) or preserved EF (HFpEF; LVEF ≥ 50%). Methods and results We examined data collected in the American College of Cardiology's National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) Registry® for first HF patient visits between 1 May 2008 and 30 June 2016. Analysis was performed using ANOVA F‐tests (or Kruskal–Wallis tests for non‐normally distributed variables) for continuous parameters and χ2 tests for nominal covariates at the first diagnosed HF visit. Given the NCDR PINNACLE Registry® is a US‐based registry, we opted to define HFmrEF as per the US guidelines, which define HFmrEF as LVEF 41–49% in contrast to European guidelines, which define HFmrEF as LVEF 40–49%. Among 1 103 386 patients with available data, 36.1% (N = 398 228) had HFrEF, 7.5% (N = 82 292) had HFmrEF, and 56.5% (N = 622 866) had HFpEF. Compared with patients with HFrEF or HFpEF, patients with HFmrEF had more prevalent coronary and peripheral artery disease and more history of myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, or coronary artery bypass surgery (all P < 0.001). Patients with HFmrEF were also more likely to have atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease and to have a history of tobacco use (both P < 0.001). Among those with EF assessment prior to this analysis, only 4.8% (N = 1032) previously had HFrEF that improved to HFmrEF; 32.9% (N = 7072) had HFpEF previously and progressed to HFmrEF. Those patients who transitioned from HFpEF to HFmrEF had considerably more complex profiles and were less aggressively managed compared with those who remained with HFmrEF (all P < 0.001). Conclusions In this large descriptive analysis, patients with HFmrEF had an atherothrombotic phenotype distinct from other forms of HF. Interventions aimed at treating coronary ischaemia and addressing prevalent risk factors may play a particularly important role in the management of patients with HFmrEF.

No abstract

C ardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to reduce heart failure symptoms, hospitalizations, and mortality while improving quality of life in selected patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and electrocardiographic evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony.1-5 The benefits of CRT, however, are not uniform and depend on both QRS morphology and QRS duration.6,7 Current professional society guidelines reserve the highest recommendation for CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a left bundle branch block (LBBB), and QRS ≥150 ms (class I recommendation). 8 The recommendations for those without LBBB are more equivocal (class IIa or IIb recommendation dependent on QRS duration). 8In available analyses of clinical trials and observational data, women tend to do better with CRT-D than men. 9-11 Background-Women have been under-represented in trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillators (CRT-D).Previous studies suggest that women benefit from CRT-D at shorter QRS duration than men and that there may be no benefit of CRT-D in patients without left bundle branch block (LBBB) regardless of patient sex. Methods and Results-We compared sex-specific death risk in 75 079 patients with New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged QRS duration (≥120 ms) receiving either CRT-D or implantable cardioverter defibrillator in subgroups according to QRS morphology and 10-ms increments in QRS duration. We applied propensity score weighting to control for differences between treatments. .17). In subgroups according to QRS duration, CRT-D was associated with better survival in both sexes with LBBB and QRS ≥130 ms, whereas there was no clear relation between QRS duration and survival in patients without LBBB regardless of patient sex. Conclusions-In a large real-world population CRT-D was associated with a lower mortality risk in both sexes with LBBB, although more pronounced among women. Only among those with LBBB, both sexes had better survival with longer QRS duration. The mortality differences in patients without LBBB were attenuated in both sexes. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015;8:S4-S11.