Adherence to guidelines is a predictor of outcome in chronic heart failure: the MAHLER survey
ABSTRACT The impact on outcome of the implementation of European guidelines for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) has not been evaluated. We investigated the consequences of adherence to care by cardiologists on the rate of CHF and cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations and time to CV hospitalization.
We constructed class adherence indicators for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, beta-blockers, spironolactone, diuretics, and cardiac glycosides and GAIs (GAI3 adherence to first three classes of heart failure medication, GAI5 adherence to five classes). In the study, 1410 evaluable patients (mean age 69, 69% males, New York Heart Association (NYHA) II: 64%, III: 34%, IV: 2%) were enrolled and followed up for 6 months by 150 randomly selected cardiologists/cardiology departments from six European countries (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, and UK). Overall, adherence to treatment guidelines was 60 (GAI3) and 63% (GAI5) and was better for ACE-I (88%) or diuretics (82%) than for cardiac glycosides (52%), beta-blockers (58%), and spironolactone (36%). In the three tertiles of the population defined by a decreasing mean adherence score value, CHF and CV hospitalization rates were, respectively, 6.7, 9.7, and 14.7% and 11.2, 15.9, and 20.6% (P<0.002 and P<0.001, respectively). Global adherence indicator GAI3 was an independent predictor of time to CV hospitalization in a multi-variable model together with NYHA Class, history of CHF hospitalization, ischaemic aetiology, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.
We demonstrate that adherence of physicians to treatment guidelines is a strong predictor of fewer CV hospitalizations in actual practice. There is a need to develop further quality improvement programmes in this condition.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Pablo Lapuerta, Jun 02, 2015
SourceAvailable from: Alberto Pinsino10/2014, Degree: MD, Supervisor: doctor Gabriella Malfatto, professor Gianfranco Parati
[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
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The B-type natriuretic peptides are now available on many automated clinical analysers. Clinical practice guidelines for heart failure include recommendations for where the B-type natriuretic peptides are possibly useful for clinical practice. A number of systematic reviews considering B-type natriuretic peptides in relation to heart failure patients have been published.Methods This review will consider the evidence presented in the systematic reviews and how this can be applied to clinical practice.ResultsTwenty-six systematic reviews are summarised in tables considering applications to diagnostic, prognostic and guiding therapy. Important clinical considerations for these applications are discussed to facilitate appropriate implementation in the clinical laboratory.Conclusion Most clinical laboratories should be considering the appropriate implementation of the B-type natriuretic peptide as a diagnostic test to assist in ruling out heart failure. In the application of prognosis and guiding therapy a number of questions remain to be answered.Clinical Biochemistry 11/2014; 48(4-5). DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.11.002 · 2.23 Impact Factor