Skip to Main Content

CORE's Previous Projects

Tele-HF is the largest randomized controlled trial to study the effectiveness of telemonitoring on heart failure outcomes.
The SAMI study defined how hospital organizational strategies may improve outcomes in patients following acute myocardial infarction.

In 2010, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health established a Center for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research at Yale University, one of three identified after a national competition. CCOR’s 4-year grant will provide the research infrastructure to develop a national surveillance program for cardiovascular care and outcomes.

Women 55 years and younger have about twice the risk of death from a heart attack than similarly aged men. Our VIRGO group has been funded by the National Institutes of Health to examine predictors of a broad range of early and 1-year outcomes for young women with heart attacks and to examine such questions as: Do women get the same quality of care as men?

Hospitalomics, funded by a 4-year Donaghue Foundation grant, is a multi-disciplinary data-driven approach that combines systems thinking, outcomes sciences, and information sciences to generate information on variation in hospital care and to identify those patterns of care that are strongly associated with the best performance as measured by clinical outcomes (mortality and readmission rates) and hospital costs.

The Yale Collaboration to Optimize Medical Evidence and Transparency (COMET) Project was formed to serve as a trusted intermediary and provide transparent recommendations on clinical research design and medical product evidence generation. As an effort by academically-based clinical researchers, the Yale COMET Project operates independently of regulators, manufacturers and payers to serve the best interests of patients and the public, while respecting concerns of other stakeholders. An independent organization creates a separation from stakeholders that builds trust in the process, strengthens its integrity, and reduces opportunities for real or perceived influence. We provide fair and impartial assessments of what is needed to advance medical therapeutic and technology evaluation.

The surveillance of medical devices is intended to provide critical information to all relevant stakeholders about device safety, long-term product performance, and effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. However, we are far from this ideal system. Instead, we rely largely upon voluntary reporting systems from providers, health care facility networks, industry, and claims-based or other health care practice databases to characterize risks and benefits of devices in the post-approval environment. There are many shortcomings of these current surveillance systems, and there are no common methods to define the safety signals or the underlying relationships between device, or machine, failure and clinical events. Current analytical approaches typically fail to leverage the complexity and high-dimensionality of health care data sets and single registry efforts are inefficient and not scalable. Electronic health record or claims-based systems currently do not contain the detail needed for longitudinal device evaluation and patient follow-up with outcome assessment.