ABSTRACT
Aims: Implementation of guideline-recommended pharmacological treatment in heart failure (HF) patients remains challenging. In 2021, the European Heart Failure Association (HFA) published a consensus document in which patient profiles were created based on readily available patient characteristics and suggested that treatment adjusted to patient profile may result in better individualized treatment and improved guideline adherence. This study aimed to assess the distribution of these patient profiles and their treatment in a large real-world chronic HF cohort. Methods and results: The HFA combined categories of heart rate, blood pressure, presence of atrial fibrillation, chronic kidney disease, and hyperkalemia into eleven phenotypic patient profiles. A total of 4,455 patients with chronic HF and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with complete information on all characteristics were distributed over these profiles. In total, 1,640 patients (36.8%) could be classified into one of the HFA profiles. Three of these each comprised >5% of the population and consisted of patients with a heart rate >60 beats per minute with normal blood pressure (>90/60 mmHg) and no hyperkalemia. Conclusion: Nearly forty percent of a real-world chronic HF population could be distributed over the eleven patient profiles as suggested by the HFA. Phenotype-specific treatment recommendations are clinically relevant and important to further improve guideline implementation.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated adherence to drug therapy guidelines in heart failure (HF) with reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <40% (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF]), in which evidence-based treatment has been established. BACKGROUND: Despite previous surveys of HF, important uncertainties remain regarding guideline adherence in a representative real-world population. METHODS: A cross-sectional registry in 34 Dutch HF outpatient clinics that included 10,910 patients with the diagnosis of HF was examined. Of that number, 8,360 patients had LVEF <50% (72 ± 12 years of age; 64% male) and were divided into HFrEF (n = 5,701), HF with mid-range LVEF (HFmrEF) with LVEF 40% to 49% (n = 1,574), and those with semiquantitatively measured LVEF but <50% (n = 1,085). RESULTS: In the HFrEF group, 81% of the patients were treated with loop diuretics, 84% with renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitors, 86% with ß-blockers, 56% with mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists (MRA), and 5% with If-channel inhibition. Differences in medication use were minor among the 3 groups but were significant among centers. Inability to tolerate the medications was recorded in 9.4% patients taking RAS inhibitors, 3.3% taking ß-blockers, and 5.4% taking MRAs. Median loop diuretic dose was 40 mg of furosemide equivalent, RAS inhibitor dose 50% of target, ß-blocker dose 25% of target, and MRA dose 12.5 mg of spironolactone equivalent. Elderly patients were treated predominantly with diuretics and less often with RAS inhibitors, ß-blockers, and MRAs. CONCLUSIONS: This large contemporary HF registry showed a relatively high use of evidence-based treatment, particularly in younger patients. However, the average dose of evidence-based medication was still lower than recommended by guidelines. Furthermore, the more recently introduced If-channel inhibition has hardly been adopted. There is ample room for improvement of HFrEF therapy, even more than 25 years after convincing evidence that HFrEF treatment leads to better outcome.
