Congestive heart failure with preserved systolic function in a statewide sample of community hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The importance of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function is increasingly recognized, but most studies have been conducted at a single, usually academic, medical center. The aim of this study was to determine the prognosis, readmission rate, and effect of ACE inhibitor therapy in a Medicare cohort with CHF and preserved systolic function. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined a statewide, random sample of 1,720 California Medicare patients hospitalized with an ICD-9 diagnosis of CHF confirmed by a decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) or chest radiograph from July 1993 to June 1994 and January 1996 to June 1996. Among the 782 patients with confirmed CHF and an in-hospital left ventricular EF measurement, 45% had reduced systolic function (ReSF) (EF < 40%) and 55% had preserved systolic function (PrSF) (EF > 40%). The PrSF group had a lower 1-year mortality rate but similar hospital readmission rates for both CHF and all causes. In patients with ReSF, ACE inhibitor treatment was associated with a lower mortality rate (P =.04) and a trend toward a lower CHF readmission rate (P =.13). In contrast, ACE inhibition therapy was associated with neither a lower rate of mortality nor CHF readmission in PrSF patients (P =.61 and.12, respectively). In multivariate analyses treatment with ACE inhibitors in PrSF patients was not associated with either a reduction in mortality (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.79-1.67) or CHF readmission (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: CHF with PrSF seems to be associated with high mortality and morbidity rates, but ACE inhibitors may not produce comparable benefit in this group as in patients with ReSF.

A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States.

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, management, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE from 1980 to 1997, as well as bibliographic references to articles about the effects of physician specialty on the knowledge, treatment, and outcomes of patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles met our criteria for inclusion (including eight that involved knowledge or self-reported practices, 14 that described actual practice patterns, and six that measured clinical outcomes). Cardiologists were more knowledgeable than generalist physicians about the optimal evaluation and management of coronary disease but not about the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for heart failure. Patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction were more likely to receive proven medical therapies, and possibly had improved outcomes, if they were treated by cardiologists. The use of lipid-lowering drugs after myocardial infarction was also more common among patients of cardiologists. ACE inhibitor use for heart failure was probably greater, and short-term readmission rates were lower, with cardiology care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with coronary disease or heart failure in the United States who are treated by cardiologists appear more likely to receive evidence-based care and probably have better outcomes. Investigation of collaborative models of care and innovative efforts to improve the use of proven therapies by physicians are needed.

Outcome following acute myocardial infarction: are differences among physician specialties the result of quality of care or case mix?

BACKGROUND: Studies to determine whether care by cardiologists improves the survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) have produced conflicting results, and it is not known what accounts for differences in patient outcome by physician specialty. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether cardiologists provide more recommended therapies to elderly patients with acute MI and, if so, to determine whether variations in processes of care account for differences in patient outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using medical chart data and administrative data files. SETTING: All nonfederal acute care hospitals in California. PATIENTS: A cohort of 7663 Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older directly admitted to the hospital with a confirmed acute MI from April 1994 to July 1995 with complete data regarding potential contraindications to recommended therapies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of "good" and "ideal" candidates for a given acute MI therapy who actually received that therapy, percentage who received exercise stress testing or coronary angiography, percentage who underwent revascularization, and 1-year mortality, stratified by specialty of the attending physician. RESULTS: During hospitalization, good candidates for aspirin were more likely to receive aspirin if they were treated by cardiologists (87%) than by medical subspecialists (73%; P<.001), general internists (84%; P = .003), or family practitioners (81%; P<.001). Cardiologists were also more likely to treat good candidates with thrombolytic therapy (51%) than were medical subspecialists (29%; P<.001), general internists (40%; P<.001), or family practitioners (27%; P<.001). Patients of cardiologists were 2- to 4-fold more likely to undergo a revascularization procedure. Despite these differences in utilization, we found similar 30-day mortality rates across physician specialties. However, 1-year mortality rates were greater for patients treated by medical subspecialists (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-2.3), general internists (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6), and family practitioners (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9) than for those treated by cardiologists. Adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics markedly reduced the ORs for those treated by medical subspecialists (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.4), general internists (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.3), and family practitioners (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6), whereas further adjustment for medication use and revascularization procedures had little effect. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the use of recommended therapies by physician specialty are generally small and do not explain differences in patient outcome. In comparison, differences among patients treated by physicians of various specialties (case mix) have a large impact on patient outcome and may account for the residual survival advantage of patients treated by cardiologists. With the exception of the in-hospital use of aspirin, recommended MI therapies are markedly underused, regardless of the specialty of the physician.

Plasma specific gravity for identifying hypovolaemia.

To define ranges of plasma specific gravity useful for identifying volume depletion in older adults, plasma specific gravity was measured in 170 young adults (mean age 28 years) and 100 retirees (mean age 81 years), and ranges of values likely to be associated with volume depletion were defined. Subsequently, measurements of plasma specific gravity were made in 68 older emergency room (ER) patients (mean age 74 years), a few of whom had obvious reasons for being hypovolaemic, e.g. dehydrating diarrhoea, and these results were compared to those for the control groups. Ranges for plasma specific gravity useful for identifying volume depletion were designated as possible hypovolaemia (1.0265-1.0279), probable hypovolaemia (1.0280-1.0294), and hypovolaemia (> or = 1.0295). Using these definitions, there were more older ER patients compared to both young and old control group subjects, respectively, with probable hypovolaemia (21% vs. 5% and 8%; p < 0.03) and hypovolaemia (16% vs. 0% and 0%; p < 0.03). This study establishes ranges for plasma specific gravity for young and old adults likely to be associated with hypovolaemia, and shows that based upon measurement of plasma specific gravity, older ER patients may often be hypovolemic even in the absence of obvious fluid-wasting illnesses. Future studies are needed to identify the risk factors for hypovolaemia in ER patients, and more vigorously substantiate the findings of this study.