Treatment of heart failure in real-world clinical practice: findings from the REFLECT-HF registry in patients with NYHA class II symptoms and a reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Optimal medical therapy (OMT) for patients with chronic heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) includes angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, ß-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, plus a diuretic. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that OMT is less often prescribed in HF-REF patients (≤35%) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II symptoms compared with those with NYHA class III/IV symptoms. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter survey of hospital-based cardiologists, office-based cardiologists, and general practitioners in Germany. RESULTS: Out of a total of 384 patients enrolled, 144 had REF ≤35%. Patients with REF had NYHA class II symptoms in 39.6% (n = 57) and NYHA class III/IV symptoms in 60.4% (n = 87). The REF/NYHA class II group had a higher proportion of males than the REF/NYHA class III/IV group. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and ß-blockers, prescription rates were high and comparable between groups. However, prescription rates for mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were lower compared with other guideline-recommended treatments. Multivariate analyses indicated that OMT prescription was reduced for older patients and increased for patients cared for by an office-based cardiologist. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high proportion of patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function but only minor symptoms, HF-REF appears to be underdiagnosed, and a higher proportion of patients than are currently recognized could potentially be candidates for OMT.

Registry in Germany focusing on level-specific and evidence-based decision finding in the treatment of heart failure: REFLECT-HF.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, care for patients with chronic heart failure (HF) is provided by hospital-based cardiologists (HBC), office-based cardiologists (OBC) and general practitioners (GP). We aimed to compare patient characteristics, diagnostic approaches and therapeutic decisions. METHODS: Multi-centre, cross-sectional, observational survey at 48 physicians. Patients (n = 384) were required to have previously diagnosed HF and NYHA class ≥ II and/or a left ventricular ejection fraction of <50 %. A total of 384 patients were included at 5 HBCs, 26 OBCs and 18 GPs. RESULTS: A mean of 18.8 % of all patients at HBCs practices had heart failure, compared to a smaller proportion of 13.9 and 6.7 % at OBCs and GPs, respectively. Echo facility was available for all HBCs and OBCs, but for 16.7 % of GPs (p < 0.0001 for trend). Patients at HBCs had a higher NYHA class (65.6 % had class III/IV; p < 0.0001) compared to 36.8 % at OBCs and 39.3 % at GPs. Usage of three guideline-recommended pharmaceutical treatments was more than 80 %: diuretics (83.1 %), renin-angiotensin system blocking agents (91.4 %) and betablockers (90.1 %) with no differences between physician groups. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs, overall 47.7 %) were more frequently prescribed by OBCs (54.7 %; p = 0.0007 for trend) than HBCs (43.8 %) and GPs (31.0 %). Ivabradin was not frequently used (11.0 % at OBCs, 4.9 % at HBCs and 0 % at GPs; p = 0.0163 for trend). The proportion of patients with CRT (8.6 %), ICD (23.5 %) and CABG (23.1 %) was not statistically different between groups. CONCLUSION: REFLECT-HF demonstrates that there are some differences in evidence-based treatment decisions between the three main health services (HBC, OBC and GP) providing care for patients with HF in Germany. Advocating adherence to guideline recommendations and earlier adoption of these evidence-based treatments across all levels of care might further improve patient care.