Publications

Over the past 3 decades, a substantial body of high-quality evidence has guided the diagnosis and management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in the outpatient setting. In contrast, there is a lack of comparable evidence for guiding the management of elevated BP in the acute care setting, resulting in significant practice variation. Throughout this scientific statement, we use the terms acute care and inpatient to refer to care received in the emergency department and after admission to the hospital. Elevated inpatient BP is common and can manifest either as asymptomatic or with signs of new or worsening target-organ damage, a condition referred to as hypertensive emergency. Hypertensive emergency involves acute target-organ damage and should be treated swiftly, usually with intravenous antihypertensive medications, in a closely monitored setting. However, the risk-benefit ratio of initiating or intensifying antihypertensive medications for asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP is less clear. Despite this ambiguity, clinicians prescribe oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications in approximately one-third of cases of asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP. Recent observational studies have suggested potential harms associated with treating asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP, which brings current practice into question. Despite the ubiquity of elevated inpatient BPs, few position papers, guidelines, or consensus statements have focused on improving BP management in the acute care setting. Therefore, this scientific statement aims to synthesize the available evidence, provide suggestions for best practice based on the available evidence, identify evidence-based gaps in managing elevated inpatient BP (asymptomatic and hypertensive emergency), and highlight areas requiring further research.

BACKGROUND: Timely follow-up after cardiovascular hospitalization is recommended to monitor recovery, titrate medications, and coordinate care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe trends and disparities in follow-up after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Medicare.

PARTICIPANTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized between 2010 and 2019.

MEASUREMENTS: Receipt of a cardiology visit within 30 days of discharge. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate changes over time overall and across 5 sociodemographic characteristics on the basis of known disparities in cardiovascular outcomes.

RESULTS: The cohort included 1 678 088 AMI and 4 245 665 HF hospitalizations. Between 2010 and 2019, the rate of cardiology follow-up increased from 48.3% to 61.4% for AMI hospitalizations and from 35.2% to 48.3% for HF hospitalizations. For both conditions, follow-up rates increased for all subgroups, yet disparities worsened for Hispanic patients with AMI and patients with HF who were Asian, Black, Hispanic, Medicaid dual eligible, and residents of counties with higher levels of social deprivation. By 2019, the largest disparities were between Black and White patients (AMI, 51.9% vs. 59.8%, difference, 7.9 percentage points [pp] [95% CI, 6.8 to 9.0 pp]; HF, 39.8% vs. 48.7%, difference, 8.9 pp [CI, 8.2 to 9.7 pp]) and Medicaid dual-eligible and non-dual-eligible patients (AMI, 52.8% vs. 60.4%, difference, 7.6 pp [CI, 6.9 to 8.4 pp]; HF, 39.7% vs. 49.4%, difference, 9.6 pp [CI, 9.2 to 10.1 pp]). Differences between hospitals explained 7.3 pp [CI, 6.7 to 7.9 pp] of the variation in follow-up for AMI and 7.7 pp [CI, 7.2 to 8.1 pp]) for HF.

LIMITATION: Generalizability to other payers.

CONCLUSION: Equity-informed policy and health system strategies are needed to further reduce gaps in follow-up care for patients with AMI and patients with HF.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common medical condition presenting with heartburn, regurgitation, cough, hoarseness, and/or wheezing. Patients with classic GERD symptoms often do not require diagnostic studies before empirical treatment is initiated. However, if atypical features are present, including alarm symptoms for malignancy, or if symptoms do not respond to conventional treatment, upper endoscopy may be necessary. The optimal management of GERD, which is the subject of debate, depends on the frequency and severity of symptoms. In 2021, the American College of Gastroenterology published updated recommendations for diagnosis and management of GERD. In addition to histamine-2 receptor antagonist or proton-pump inhibitor therapy, which may be prescribed as needed or continuously, lifestyle and dietary modification are often advised. Here, 2 physicians, a primary care practitioner and a gastroenterologist, debate how to manage a patient with GERD symptoms. They discuss the diagnosis of this condition, its initial management, indications for upper endoscopy, and how to care for the patient whose condition does not respond to empirical therapy.

AbstractDuring hospitalization, patients' blood pressure often varies substantially from their outpatient steady state and many patients experience marked fluctuations. Given a lack of guidelines for inpatient blood pressure management, treatment patterns vary and recent observational studies demonstrate intensive inpatient blood pressure treatment may be been associated with harm. This article reviews current knowledge in inpatient blood pressure management and proposes a randomized trial to compare clinical outcomes of more versus less restrictive blood pressure goals.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan was recalled by the US Food and Drug Administration in July 2018 for carcinogenic impurities, resulting in a drug shortage and management challenges for valsartan users. The influence of the valsartan recall on clinical outcomes is unknown. We compared the risk of adverse events between hypertensive patients using valsartan and a propensity score-matched group using nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Hypertensive patients who received valsartan or nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for 1 year before and on the recall date were compared. Primary outcomes were measured in the 6 months following the recall and included: (1) a composite measure of all-cause hospitalization, all-cause emergency department visit, and all-cause urgent care visit, and (2) a composite cardiac event measure of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/emergency department visits/urgent care visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or hypertension. We compared the risk of outcomes between treatment groups using Cox proportional hazard models. Of the hypertensive patients, 76 934 received valsartan, and 509 472 received a nonrecalled angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. Valsartan use at the time of recall was associated with a higher risk of all-cause hospitalization, emergency department use, or urgent care use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]) and the composite of cardiac events (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.15-1.29]) within 6 months after the recall.

CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall and shortage affected hypertensive patients. Local- and national-level systems need to be enhanced to protect patients from drug shortages by providing safe and reliable medication alternatives.