Abstract P386: Pre-hospitalization Medication Use in Black and White Medicare Beneficiaries Hospitalized With Heart Failure

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 131 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily B Levitan ◽  
Melissa K Van Dyke ◽  
Ligong Chen ◽  
Meredith L Kilgore ◽  
Todd M Brown ◽  
...  

Background: Guidelines for treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction recommend use of β-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), aldosterone antagonists, diuretics, digoxin, and, for blacks, the combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate. Race-specific treatment guidelines, differences in pathophysiology, comorbidities, and contraindications, and patient and provider preferences may result in differential use of these medications in blacks and whites with HF. Objectives: To examine differences in pre-hospitalization medication use among black and white Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF. Methods: Medicare beneficiaries with fee-for-service and pharmacy coverage who had HF hospitalizations (inpatient claims for ≥1 overnight stay with HF as the primary discharge diagnosis, discharged alive) between 2007 and 2011 were identified in the Medicare national 5% sample. More than 98% of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HF had prior inpatient or outpatient diagnoses of HF. Characteristics and medication use in the year prior to hospitalization were assessed through Medicare data. We compared pre-hospitalization medication use between black and white beneficiaries in the overall population with HF (n = 42,721) and in the subpopulation with documented systolic dysfunction (n = 9,702) with a χ 2 test. Results: Use of β-blockers and aldosterone antagonist was similar between blacks and whites ( Table ). Blacks were more likely to use ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and hydralazine. Whites were more likely to use diuretics and digoxin. Results were consistent when the population was limited to those with documented systolic dysfunction. Conclusions: Blacks were as likely as or more likely than whites to receive pharmacologic heart failure therapies with the exception of diuretics, which were none the less commonly used, and digoxin. Additional research is needed to determine the causes and implications of these differences.

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e018243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Maria Avaldi ◽  
Jacopo Lenzi ◽  
Stefano Urbinati ◽  
Dario Molinazzi ◽  
Carlo Descovich ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of cardiologist care on adherence to evidence-based secondary prevention medications, mortality and readmission within 6 months of discharge in patients with heart failure (HF).DesignRetrospective observational study based on administrative data.SettingLocal Healthcare Authority (LHA) of Bologna, one of the largest LHAs of Italy with ~870 000 inhabitants.ParticipantsAll patients residing in the LHA of Bologna discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of HF between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015.Primary and secondary outcome measuresMultivariable regression analysis was used to assess the association of inpatient and outpatient cardiologist care with adherence to evidence-based medications, all-cause mortality and hospital readmission (including emergency room visits) within 6 months of discharge.ResultsThe study population included 2650 patients (mean age 82.3 years). 340 (12.8%) patients were discharged from cardiology wards, while 635 (24.0%) were seen by a cardiologist during follow-up. Inpatient and outpatient cardiologist care was associated with an increased likelihood of adherence to ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), β-blockers and aldosterone antagonists after discharge. The risk of mortality was significantly lower among patients adherent to ACEIs/ARBs and/or β-blockers (–53% and –28%, respectively); the risk of hospital readmission was significantly lower among patients adherent to ACEIs/ARBs (–28%).ConclusionsCompared with non-specialist care, cardiologist care improves patient adherence to evidence-based medications and might thus favourably affect mortality and readmission following HF.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Norberg ◽  
Ellinor Bergdahl ◽  
Krister Lindmark

Aim. Sacubitril-valsartan has proven beneficial in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Guidelines recommend initiating half-dose sacubitril-valsartan before up-titration even to patients already on target dose angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). To reduce the number of titration steps needed in order to simplify for the patient as well as the clinic, we aimed to investigate the safety and tolerability of switching patients on target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs directly to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan. Methods. This prospective cohort study was conducted between April 2016 and November 2017. A total of 66 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction already on guideline-recommended target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs (equivalent to enalapril 10 mg twice daily) were switched to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan (200 mg twice daily). The patients were followed for twelve months. Results. Patients had a mean age of 72 ± 10 years, mean systolic blood pressure of 121 ± 17 mmHg, and 92% were male. At 12-month follow-up, nine patients (14%) had discontinued sacubitril-valsartan, four patients (6%) had a dose reduction, and 17 patients (26%) had developed symptomatic hypotension. No angioedema occurred within the 12-month follow-up and there were no hospitalizations or emergency room visits within the first 14 days. Conclusions. Switching directly from target dose ACE inhibitors or ARBs to maximum-dose sacubitril-valsartan was safe and generally well tolerated.


2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. S6-S10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Swedberg

European guidelines for the management of chronic heart failure (CHF) have been recently updated. Key changes include emphasis on CHF with preserved ejection fraction, and recognition of the role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the management of CHF patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction who remain symptomatic despite optimal therapy, or who are intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Recent trials that clearly demonstrated significant mortality and morbidity benefits were integral to these new recommendations. Additionally, a high dose of an ARB, as demonstrated in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, can significantly reduce hospitalisation for heart failure in these settings. The guidelines recommend that only those ARBs and doses used in clinical trials should be considered, taking into account current licensed indications. Clinicians who are directly involved in the management of CHF must play a key role in the dissemination of these guidelines to colleagues to ensure that optimal CHF management is integrated into standard practice.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew JS Coats ◽  
Louise G Shewan ◽  
◽  
◽  
◽  
...  

Heart failure is defined as a clinical syndrome and is known to present with a number of different pathophysiological patterns. There is a remarkable degree of variation in measures of left ventricular systolic emptying and this has been used to categorise heart failure into two separate types: low ejection fraction (EF) heart failure or HF-REF and high EF heart failure or HF-PEF. Here we review the pathophysiology, epidemiology and management of HF-PEF and argue that sharp separation of heart failure into two forms is misguided and illogical, and the present scarcity of clinical trial evidence for effective treatment for HF-PEF is a problem of our own making; we should never have excluded patients from major trials on the basis of EF in the first place. Whilst as many heart failure patients have preserved EFs as reduced we have dramatically under-represented HF-PEF patients in trials. Only four trials have been performed in HF-PEF specifically, and another two trials that recruited both HF-PEF and HF-REF can be considered. When we consider the similarity in outcomes and neurohormonal activation between HF-REF and HF-REF, the vast corpus of trial data that we have to attest to the efficacy of various treatment (angiotensinconverting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta-blockers and aldosterone antagonists) in HF-REF, and the much more limited number of trials of similar agents showing near statistically significant benefits in HF-PEF the time has come rethink our management of HF-PEF, and in particular our selection of patients for trials.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document