Key result
Receiving a majority of care via virtual visits compared to in-person visits was not significantly associated with longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score or key CVD risk factors.
Why the study?
Limited research has evaluated how virtual care affects CVD risk management, particularly in community clinic settings.
Does primarily virtual care compared to primarily in-person care affect CVD risk management in community clinic patients?
Observational (n=16,621)
Yes
Does primarily virtual care compared to primarily in-person care affect CVD risk management in community clinic patients?
Receiving a majority of care via virtual visits was not significantly associated with different longitudinal trends in CVD risk factors compared to in-person care.
Virtual care showed similar CVD risk trends to in-person; leaves open need for RCTs on long-term outcomes and equity.
OBJECTIVES: Limited research has assessed how virtual care (VC) affects cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management, especially in community clinic settings. This study assessed change in community clinic patients' CVD risk management during the COVID-19 pandemic and CVD risk factor control among patients who had primarily in-person or primarily VC visits. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective interrupted time-series analysis. METHODS: Data came from an electronic health record shared by 52 community clinics for index (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020) and follow-up (July 1, 2020, to February 28, 2022) periods. Analyses compared follow-up period changes in slope and level of population monthly means of 10-year reversible CVD risk score, blood pressure (BP), and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) among patients whose completed follow-up period visits were primarily in person vs primarily VC. Propensity score weighting minimized confounding. RESULTS: There were 10,028 in-person and 6593 VC patients in CVD risk analyses, 9874 in-person and 5390 VC patients in BP analyses, and 8221 in-person and 4937 VC patients in HbA1c analyses. The VC group was more commonly younger, female, White, and urban. Mean reversible CVD risk, mean systolic BP, and percentage of BP measurements that were 140/90 mm Hg or higher increased significantly from index to follow-up periods in both groups. Rate of change between these periods was the same for all outcomes in both groups, regardless of care modality. CONCLUSIONS: Among community clinic patients with CVD risk, receiving a majority of care in person vs a majority of care via VC was not significantly associated with longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score or key CVD risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rachel Gold (2024) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease risk (n=16,621). Primarily virtual care (VC) visits vs. Primarily in-person visits was evaluated on Longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score, blood pressure, and HbA1c. Receiving a majority of care via virtual visits compared to in-person visits was not significantly associated with longitudinal trends in reversible CVD risk score or key CVD risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: