Disparities in Practice Patterns by Sex, Race, and Ethnicity in Patients Referred for Advanced Heart Failure Therapies.

Advanced heart failure (HF) therapies improve survival in patients with stage D HF. We sought to evaluate differences by race/ethnicity and sex in advanced HF therapy referrals and decision-making across a multicenter survey. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred for evaluation for advanced HF therapies at 9 centers (n = 515) across the United States. The median age was 58 years, and 73% were male. White patients comprised 55.7% of referrals, whereas non-White patients comprised 44.3%. Non-ischemic etiology was more common in non-White patients (66.6% vs 47.4% p = 0.0005), and ischemic etiology was more common in men (37.8% vs 20.4% p = 0.0005). The primary reason for referral differed by race/ethnicity but not sex, with ventricular arrhythmias (7.6% vs 3%, p = 0.024) and pulmonary hypertension (3.4% vs 0.4% p = 0.018) being more common in White patients, whereas worsening HF was less common (25.4% vs 35.9%; p = 0.009). White patients were offered left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (60.3% vs 54.7 p = 0.039) and heart transplants (51.8% vs 33.1% p = 0.0007) more often than non-White patients. The preference not to pursue LVAD therapy was more common in non-White patients (17.6% vs 9.6%; p = 0.049). Men were more often declined for a heart transplant because of psychosocial contraindications (34% vs 15%, p = 0.005). In conclusion, in this multicenter analysis of referrals for advanced HF therapies, we observed significant differences by race, ethnicity, and sex in both referral characteristics and evaluation outcomes. Further investigation is warranted to better understand why rates of LVAD and transplantation may be lower in non-White patients who are referred for advanced therapies.

Practices of Referring Patients to Advanced Heart Failure Centers.

BACKGROUND: Therapies for advanced heart failure (AHF) improve the likelihood of survival in a growing population of patients with stage D heart failure (HF). Successful implementation of these therapies is dependent upon timely and appropriate referrals to AHF centers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients referred to 9 AHF centers for evaluation for AHF therapies. Patients' demographics, referring providers' characteristics, referral circumstances, and evaluation outcomes were collected. RESULTS: The majority of referrals (n = 515) were male (73.4%), and a majority of those were in the advanced state of the disease: very low left ventricular ejection fraction (<20% in 51.5%); 59.4% inpatient; and high risk Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (74.5% profile 1-3). HF cardiologists (49.1%) were the most common originating referral source; the least common (4.9%) were electrophysiologists. Common clinical triggers for referral included worsening HF (30.0%), inotrope dependence (19.6%), hospitalization (19.4%), and cardiogenic shock (17.8%). Most commonly, AHF therapies were not offered because patients were too sick (38.0%-45.1%) or for psychosocial reasons (20.3%-28.6%). Compared to non-HF cardiologists, patients referred by HF cardiologists were offered an AHF therapy more often (66.8% vs 58.4%, P = 0.0489). Of those not offered any AHF therapy, 28.4% received home inotropic therapy, and 14.5% were referred to hospice. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter review of AHF referrals, HF cardiologists referred the most patients despite being a relatively small proportion of the overall clinician population. Late referral was prevalent in this high-risk patient population and correlates with worsened outcomes, suggesting a significant need for broad clinician education regarding the benefits, triggers and appropriate timing of referral to AHF centers for optimal patient outcomes.

A manifesto of collaborative longitudinal cardiovascular care in heart failure.

In this document, we outline the challenges faced by patients and clinicians in heart failure, specifically centered around the needed coordination of care among the various subspecialties within cardiovascular medicine. We call for a more organized and collaborative effort among clinicians in primary care, general cardiology, electrophysiology, interventional cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac imaging, and heart failure-all caring for mutual patients. Care is contextualized within the framework of two phases: a cardiomyopathy phase and an advanced heart failure phase, each of which lends to different considerations in therapy. Ultimately multidisciplinary coordinated care within cardiovascular medicine may lead to greater patient and clinician satisfaction as well as improved outcomes, but this remains to be investigated.