Cargando…
Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, high morbidity and mortality. The prognosis can be optimised by guideline adherence, which also can be used as a benchmark of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in use of HF medication between Dutch...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32430655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-020-01421-1 |
_version_ | 1783541902242480128 |
---|---|
author | Linssen, G. C. M. Veenis, J. F. Brunner-La Rocca, H. P. van Pol, P. E. J. Engelen, D. J. M. van Tooren, R. M. Koornstra-Wortel, H. J. J. Hoes, A. W. Brugts, J. J. |
author_facet | Linssen, G. C. M. Veenis, J. F. Brunner-La Rocca, H. P. van Pol, P. E. J. Engelen, D. J. M. van Tooren, R. M. Koornstra-Wortel, H. J. J. Hoes, A. W. Brugts, J. J. |
author_sort | Linssen, G. C. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, high morbidity and mortality. The prognosis can be optimised by guideline adherence, which also can be used as a benchmark of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in use of HF medication between Dutch HF clinics. METHODS: The current analysis was part of a cross-sectional registry of 10,910 chronic HF patients at 34 Dutch outpatient clinics in the period of 2013 until 2016 (CHECK-HF), and focused on the differences in prescription rates between the participating clinics in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). RESULTS: A total of 8,360 HFrEF patients were included with a mean age of 72.3 ± 11.8 years (ranging between 69.1 ± 11.9 and 76.6 ± 10.0 between the clinics), 63.9% were men (ranging between 54.3 and 78.1%), 27.3% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (ranging between 8.8 and 62.1%) and the average estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59.6 ± 24.6 ml/min (ranging between 45.7 ± 23.5 and 97.1 ± 16.5). The prescription rates ranged from 58.9–97.4% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 61.9–97.1% for renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (p < 0.01), 29.9–86.8% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) (p < 0.01), 0.0–31.3% for ivabradine (p < 0.01) and 64.9–100.0% for diuretics (p < 0.01). Also, the percentage of patients who received the target dose differed significantly, 5.9–29.1% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 18.4–56.1% for RAS inhibitors (p < 0.01) and 13.2–60.6% for MRAs (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription rates and prescribed dosages of guideline-recommended medication differed significantly between HF outpatient clinics in the Netherlands, not fully explained by differences in patient profiles. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01421-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7270463 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Bohn Stafleu van Loghum |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72704632020-06-15 Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry Linssen, G. C. M. Veenis, J. F. Brunner-La Rocca, H. P. van Pol, P. E. J. Engelen, D. J. M. van Tooren, R. M. Koornstra-Wortel, H. J. J. Hoes, A. W. Brugts, J. J. Neth Heart J Original Article BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is associated with poor prognosis, high morbidity and mortality. The prognosis can be optimised by guideline adherence, which also can be used as a benchmark of quality of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in use of HF medication between Dutch HF clinics. METHODS: The current analysis was part of a cross-sectional registry of 10,910 chronic HF patients at 34 Dutch outpatient clinics in the period of 2013 until 2016 (CHECK-HF), and focused on the differences in prescription rates between the participating clinics in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). RESULTS: A total of 8,360 HFrEF patients were included with a mean age of 72.3 ± 11.8 years (ranging between 69.1 ± 11.9 and 76.6 ± 10.0 between the clinics), 63.9% were men (ranging between 54.3 and 78.1%), 27.3% were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV (ranging between 8.8 and 62.1%) and the average estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 59.6 ± 24.6 ml/min (ranging between 45.7 ± 23.5 and 97.1 ± 16.5). The prescription rates ranged from 58.9–97.4% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 61.9–97.1% for renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (p < 0.01), 29.9–86.8% for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) (p < 0.01), 0.0–31.3% for ivabradine (p < 0.01) and 64.9–100.0% for diuretics (p < 0.01). Also, the percentage of patients who received the target dose differed significantly, 5.9–29.1% for beta blockers (p < 0.01), 18.4–56.1% for RAS inhibitors (p < 0.01) and 13.2–60.6% for MRAs (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The prescription rates and prescribed dosages of guideline-recommended medication differed significantly between HF outpatient clinics in the Netherlands, not fully explained by differences in patient profiles. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01421-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum 2020-05-19 2020-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7270463/ /pubmed/32430655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-020-01421-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Linssen, G. C. M. Veenis, J. F. Brunner-La Rocca, H. P. van Pol, P. E. J. Engelen, D. J. M. van Tooren, R. M. Koornstra-Wortel, H. J. J. Hoes, A. W. Brugts, J. J. Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title | Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title_full | Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title_fullStr | Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title_short | Differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between Dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the CHECK-HF registry |
title_sort | differences in guideline-recommended heart failure medication between dutch heart failure clinics: an analysis of the check-hf registry |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7270463/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32430655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12471-020-01421-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT linssengcm differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT veenisjf differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT brunnerlaroccahp differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT vanpolpej differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT engelendjm differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT vantoorenrm differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT koornstrawortelhjj differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT hoesaw differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT brugtsjj differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry AT differencesinguidelinerecommendedheartfailuremedicationbetweendutchheartfailureclinicsananalysisofthecheckhfregistry |