Clinical Reminders Attached to Echocardiography Reports of Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Increase Use of β-Blockers A Randomized Trial

Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, United States
Circulation (Impact Factor: 14.95). 06/2007; 115(22):2829-34. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.684753
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although beta-blockers are known to prolong survival for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, they are often underused. We hypothesized that a reminder attached to the echocardiography report would increase the use of beta-blockers for patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
We randomized 1546 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction <45% found on echocardiography at 1 of 3 laboratories to a reminder for use of beta-blockers or no reminder. Patients were excluded from analysis if they died within 30 days of randomization (n=89), did not receive medications through the Veterans Affairs system after 30 days (n=180), or underwent echocardiography at >1 laboratory (n=6). The primary outcome was a prescription for an oral beta-blocker between 1 and 9 months after randomization. The mean age of the 1271 included patients was 69 years; 60% had a history of heart failure, and 51% were receiving treatment with beta-blockers at the time of echocardiography. More patients randomized to the reminder had a subsequent beta-blocker prescription (74%, 458 of 621) compared with those randomized to no reminder (66%, 428 of 650; P=0.002). The effect of the reminder was not significantly different for subgroups based on patient location (inpatient versus outpatient) or prior use of beta-blockers.
A reminder attached to the echocardiography report increased the use of beta-blockers in patients with depressed left ventricular systolic function.

  • Source
    Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases 07/2008; 101(7-8):431-3. DOI:10.1016/j.acvd.2008.07.002 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite data showing the benefits of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) insertion for primary prevention in populations at risk for sudden death, professional society guidelines recommending primary prevention, and recognition by payers of the clinical value of ICDs in these populations, ICDs for primary prevention remain underused. We sought to determine whether implementing a screening tool would increase appropriate identification of patients showing clinical evidence of ICD benefit and prompt referral to an electrophysiologist for ICD implantation. Screening tools were affixed to medical records for patients seen in 2 outpatient cardiology offices that queried ejection fraction and whether referral to an electrophysiologist was made (N=6632). The number of appropriate referrals in the screening period were compared with analogous data collected before implementation of the screening tool (control period) through retrospective record review (n=3606). Significantly more eligible patients were offered referral during the screening period than during the control period at both sites, 80% (8/10 eligible) versus 33% (5/15) at site 1 (P<0.02) and 100% (44/44) versus 60% (21/35) at site 2 (P<0.001). Of all patients offered referral, 41% (32/78) accepted. The use of a screening tool increases referral to electrophysiology for patients in whom placement of an ICD confers the benefit of sudden cardiac death primary prevention. Barriers to referral include both physician and patient factors. Verification of these findings on a larger scale as well as studies defining the foundation of these barriers may further improve use of ICDs in patients for whom their mortality benefit is well described.
    Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 02/2011; 4(2):152-6. DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.956987 · 5.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study is an in-depth-analysis to explain statistical heterogeneity in a systematic review of implementation strategies to improve guideline adherence of primary care physicians in the treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases. The systematic review included randomized controlled trials from a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, conference proceedings and registers of ongoing studies. Implementation strategies were shown to be effective with substantial heterogeneity of treatment effects across all investigated strategies. Primary aim of this study was to explain different effects of eligible trials and to identify methodological and clinical effect modifiers. Random effects meta-regression models were used to simultaneously assess the influence of multimodal implementation strategies and effect modifiers on physician adherence. Effect modifiers included the staff responsible for implementation, level of prevention and definition pf the primary outcome, unit of randomization, duration of follow-up and risk of bias. Six clinical and methodological factors were investigated as potential effect modifiers of the efficacy of different implementation strategies on guideline adherence in primary care practices on the basis of information from 75 eligible trials. Five effect modifiers were able to explain a substantial amount of statistical heterogeneity. Physician adherence was improved by 62% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 29 to 104%) or 29% (95% CI 5 to 60%) in trials where other non-medical professionals or nurses were included in the implementation process. Improvement of physician adherence was more successful in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases by around 30% (30%; 95% CI -2 to 71% and 31%; 95% CI 9 to 57%, respectively) compared to tertiary prevention. This study aimed to identify effect modifiers of implementation strategies on physician adherence. Especially the cooperation of different health professionals in primary care practices might increase efficacy and guideline implementation seems to be more difficult in tertiary prevention of cardiovascular diseases.
    PLoS ONE 10/2014; 9(10):e110619. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0110619 · 3.53 Impact Factor


Available from