Abstract 75: Practice-level Variation in use of Recommended Medications among Outpatients with Heart Failure: Insights from the NCDR PINNACLE Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Beta-blockers (BB) and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are guideline recommended therapies for ambulatory heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF). Real-world use of these therapies is suboptimal. Whether variations in treatment are dominated by practice-level or patient-level factors is unknown. Methods: Practices participating in the NCDR PINNACLE program, a national office-based cardiac quality improvement registry, between July 2008 and December 2010 were evaluated. Rates of treatment with BB and ACE/ARB were evaluated in patients with HFREF (EF ≤40%) and no documented contraindication. Multivariable hierarchical relative risk regression models, including demographics, insurance status, comorbidities and a random effect for practice were used to determine 1) patient-level and 2) practice-level variation in treatment rates. To quantify practice-level variation, the median rate ratio (MRR) was calculated, which estimates the typical rate ratio between two randomly selected practices for patients with identical covariates. In general, MRRs ≥ 1.2 indicate significant variation by practice. The MRR is always >1.0 but can be compared in magnitude to patient-level risks. Results: We studied 12384 patients in 45 practices. The mean practice rate for BB treatment was 87% (IQR 83%-95%; range: 43%-100%), and the mean practice rate of ACE/ARB treatment was 90% (IQR 75%-88%; range: 18%-100%). The MRR was 1.09 for BB and 1.16 for ACE/ARB therapy. For both BB and ACE/ARB, the adjusted MRR for site level variation was larger than the rate ratio for other patient factors. (Table) Conclusions: Although rates of BB and ACE/ARB treatment among outpatients with HFREF are high, clinically meaningful variation by practice is present and explains a larger amount of the observed variance than any patient characteristic. This suggests that addressing practice-level factors represents an important opportunity to improve the use of evidence-based HF therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".