Key result
AH-HA tool increases survivor-reported cardiovascular health discussions by ~78% versus usual care.
Why the study?
Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors, but tools to promote provider-patient cardiovascular health discussions in outpatient oncology needed evaluation.
Does an automated heart-health assessment clinical decision support tool increase discussions of cardiovascular health factors between providers and cancer survivors compared to usual care?
RCT (n=645)
cluster randomized
Yes
Does an automated heart-health assessment clinical decision support tool increase discussions of cardiovascular health factors between providers and cancer survivors compared to usual care?
Absolute Event Rate: 98% vs 55%
p-value: p=< .001
An EHR-based automated heart-health assessment tool significantly increased patient-provider discussions about cardiovascular health factors among cancer survivors in community oncology practices.
Supports adoption of CDS tools to boost CV discussions in cancer survivors; confirms RCT efficacy of EHR interventions in community oncology.
PURPOSE Guidelines recommend cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment and counseling for cancer survivors. This study evaluated the automated heart-health assessment (AH-HA) clinical decision support tool to promote provider-patient CV health (CVH) discussions in outpatient oncology. METHODS The AH-HA trial (WF-1804CD), coordinated by the Wake Forest National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program Research Base, randomized practices to the AH-HA tool or usual care (UC) and enrolled survivors receiving routine care ≥6 months after curative cancer treatment. The tool displayed American Heart Association Life's Simple 7 CVH factors (BMI, physical activity, diet, smoking status, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose), populated from the electronic health record (EHR), alongside cancer treatments received with cardiotoxic potential. The primary end point was survivor-reported discussion of nonideal or missing CVH factors. A mixed-effects logistic regression model assessed the effect of AH-HA on CVH discussions, adjusting for practice. RESULTS Five UC and four AH-HA practices enrolled 645 survivors (82% breast, 8% endometrial, 5% colorectal, and 5% lymphoma, prostate, or multiple types) from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Most survivors were female (96%; 84% White/non-Hispanic, 8% Black; 3% Hispanic). Nearly all survivors (98%) in AH-HA practices reported a discussion for ≥1 nonideal or missing CVH factor compared with 55% in UC ( P < .001). The average number of survivor-reported factors discussed was higher in AH-HA compared with UC (mean, 4.06 v 1.27; P < .001), as were EHR-documented discussions (3.83 v 0.77; P = .03). Survivors in AH-HA practices were also significantly more likely to report a recommendation to see a primary care provider (39%) compared with UC practices (25%, P = .02). Reported recommendations to see a cardiologist were low (approximately 6%) and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION The AH-HA tool was effective at promoting CVH discussions during routine follow-up care for survivors and recommendations to consult primary care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dressler et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in cancer survivors (n=645). automated heart-health assessment (AH-HA) clinical decision support tool vs. usual care was evaluated on survivor-reported discussion of nonideal or missing cardiovascular health factors (p=< .001). The AH-HA clinical decision support tool significantly increased survivor-reported discussions of nonideal or missing cardiovascular health factors compared with usual care (98% vs 55%; P<.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: