Manejo y tratamiento actual de la insuficiencia cardiaca en unidades acreditadas de cardiología y medicina interna en España / Current heart failure disease management and treatment in accredited units from cardiology and internal medicine in Spain

Antecedentes y objetivos La insuficiencia cardiaca (IC) es una patología compleja con una alta prevalencia, incidencia y mortalidad que conlleva un importante coste sanitario. En España existen unidades de IC (UIC) multidisciplinares, lideradas por cardiología y medicina interna. Nuestro objetivo era conocer su organización actual y adherencia a las últimas recomendaciones científicas. Materiales y métodos Un comité científico formado por cardiólogos e internistas elaboró una encuesta a finales de 2021, que fue enviada a 110 UIC. Setenta y tres de cardiología, acreditadas por SEC-Excelente, y 37 de medicina interna, integradas en el programa UMIPIC. Resultados Se recibieron 83 encuestas cumplimentadas (75,5%); 49 de cardiología y 34 de medicina interna. Los resultados mostraron que las UIC están integradas mayoritariamente por un cardiólogo, internista y enfermería especializada (34,9%). El perfil de paciente atendido en las UIC cardiológicas es muy diferente al paciente de las UMIPIC, siendo estos últimos mayores, con fracción de eyección ventricular izquierda conservada y más carga de comorbilidad. La mayoría de UIC actualmente realizan seguimiento mixto, presencial y telemático (73,5%). Los péptidos natriuréticos son los biomarcadores más utilizados (90%). Se titulan los cuatro grupos farmacológicos fundamentales de tratamiento de la IC a la vez mayoritariamente (85%). Solo 24% de las unidades mantienen una comunicación fluida con atención primaria. Conclusiones Los dos modelos de UIC liderados por cardiología y medicina interna son complementarios, disponen de enfermería especializada, y siguen al paciente de forma mixta, con una adherencia farmacológica muy alta a las últimas recomendaciones científicas. El principal punto de mejora es la coordinación con atención primaria (AU)

Background and objectives Heart failure (HF) is a complex disease with high prevalence, incidence and mortality rates leading to high healthcare burden. In Spain, there are multidisciplinary HF units coordinated by cardiology and internal medicine. Our objective was to describe its current organizational model and their adherence to the latest scientific recommendations. Materials and methods In late 2021, a scientific committee (with cardiology and internal medicine specialists) developed a questionnaire that was sent as an online survey to 110 HF units [73 from cardiology (accredited by SEC-Excelente) and 37 from internal medicine (integrated in UMIPIC program)]. Results We received 83 answers (75.5% total: 49 from cardiology and 34 from internal medicine). The results showed that HF units are mostly integrated by specialists from cardiology, internal medicine and specialized nurse practitioners (34.9%). Patient characteristics from HF units are widely different when comparing those in cardiology to UMIPIC, being the latter older, more frequently with preserved ejection fraction and higher comorbidity burden. Most HF units (73.5%) currently use a hybrid face-to-face/virtual model to perform patient follow-up. Natriuretic peptides are the biomarkers most commonly used (90%). All four disease-modifying drug classes are mainly implemented at the same time (85%). Only 24% of HF units hold fluent communication with primary care. Conclusions Both models from cardiology and internal medicine HF units are complementary, they include specialized nursing, they use hybrid approach for patient follow-up and they display a high adherence to the latest guideline recommendations. Coordination with primary care remains as the major improvement area (AU)

Current heart failure disease management and treatment in accredited units from cardiology and internal medicine in Spain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Heart failure (HF) is a complex disease with high prevalence, incidence and mortality rates leading to high healthcare burden. In Spain, there are multidisciplinary HF units coordinated by cardiology and internal medicine. Our objective is to describe its current organizational model and their adherence to the latest scientific recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In late 2021, a scientific committee (with cardiology and internal medicine specialists) developed a questionnaire that was sent as an online survey to 110 HF units. 73 from cardiology (accredited by SEC-Excelente) and 37 from internal medicine, (integrated in UMIPIC program). RESULTS: We received 83 answers (75.5% total: 49 from cardiology and 34 from internal medicine). The results showed that HF units are mostly integrated by specialists from cardiology, internal medicine and specialized nurse practitioners (34.9%). Patient characteristics from HF units are widely different when comparing those in cardiology to UMIPIC, being the latter older, more frequently with preserved ejection fraction and higher comorbidity burden. Most HF units (73.5%) currently use a hybrid face-to-face/virtual model to perform patient follow-up. Natriuretic peptides are the biomarkers most commonly used (90%). All four disease-modifying drug classes are mainly implemented at the same time (85%). Only 24% of HF units hold fluent communication with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Both models from cardiology and internal medicine HF units are complementary, they include specialized nursing, they use hybrid approach for patient follow-up and they display a high adherence to the latest guideline recommendations. Coordination with primary care remains as the major improvement area.

[Diabetes mellitus in hypertensive population attended in Primary Care in Spain. Blood pressure and lipid control rates]. / Diabetes mellitus en la población hipertensa asistida en Atención Primaria en España.Grado de control tensional y lipídico.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to determine the blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus attended in primary care setting in Spain, and to compare the data with those of the hypertensive population without diabetes. For this purpose, we analyzed the subset of diabetic patients of those included in the PRESCOT study (a cross-sectional survey of hypertensive subjects > 18 years attended in primary care). 12,954 patients (49.9% females; 62.1 +/- 10.7 years) were included in the PRESCOT study. Good controls were considered blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg (according to European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology [ESH-ESC] guidelines) and LDL-c < 100 mg/dl (National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP-ATP III]). RESULTS: Overall, 3868 (29.9%) of PRESCOT patients were diabetics (mean age 64.2 +/- 9.8 years; 47.5% males). Almost all the diabetic patients (98.5%) were taking some drug besides the antidiabetic treatment and 84.9% were taking at least 2 drugs. Although diabetic patients were treated with more antihypertensive medication than those without diabetes (48.75% vs 40.85% were on > 2 drugs, p < 0.001), blood pressure control was much lower in diabetics (6.3% vs 32.7%, p < 0.0001). In the same way, LDL-c control was also lower in these patients (12.0% vs 31.9%, p < 0.0001). Only 1.0% of diabetic hypertensives were well controlled for both risk factors (vs 11.9% of non-diabetics, p < 0.0001). Predictors of bad blood pressure control were sedentarism and presence of associated clinical conditions, and for lipid control the younger age, female gender, overweight, alcoholism and non-use of lipid-lowering agents. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of diabetes in hypertensive population attended in Spanish primary health care is frequent. One out of every three hypertensives who attend the outpatient clinic daily is diabetic. Even though more drugs are prescribed in these patients, blood pressure and LDL-c control rates are significantly lower than in patients without diabetes. In the daily practice of primary care setting, almost no diabetic hypertensive subject is well controlled for blood pressure and LDL-c.

[Blood pressure and lipid control and coronary risk in the hypertensive population attended in Primary Care setting in Spain. The PRESCOT study]. / Control de presión arterial y lípidos y riesgo coronario en la población hipertensa asistida en Atención Primaria en España. Estudio PRESCOT.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The aim of this cross-sectional and multicenter study was to determine the coronary risk of hypertensive patients attended in Spanish Primary Care and to evaluate whether blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates could change according to the ATP-III risk groups. Good blood pressure control was considered <140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg for diabetics) and LDL-c according to the established by ATP-III for every risk group. RESULTS: A total of 12,954 patients were included in the study (49.9 % women, mean age 62.1+/-10.7 years). Of these, 12.6% belonged to the group of low risk, 45% to the medium risk group and 42.4% to the high risk group. The control rates were different according to the risk group (p <0.0001). Blood pressure control: 37.5 % in low risk, 30.2 % in medium and 15.4 % in high risk group. LDL-c control: 65.6 % in low risk group, 28 % in medium risk group and 12.3 % in high risk group. Only 25.8 % of the patients of low risk were controlled for both blood pressure and LDL-c, 9.6 % of medium risk group and 2.7 % of high risk group. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of hypertensive patients daily attended in Primary Care setting in Spain belongs to the medium or high coronary risk groups. Blood pressure and LDL-c controls rates in hypertensive population are low, and very few patients have both risk factors controlled. The control rates decline when the risk increases. In fact, less than 3% of high-risk patients have both parameters well controlled, what may result in significant clinical implications.

Control de presión arterial y lípidos y riesgo coronario en la población hipertensa asistida en Atención Primaria en España. Estudio PRESCOT / Blood pressure and lipid control and coronary risk in the hypertensive population attended in Primary Care setting in Spain. The PRESCOT study

Objetivo y métodos. El objetivo de este trabajo, de diseño transversal y multicéntrico, fue conocer el perfil de riesgo coronario de los pacientes hipertensos que acuden a la consulta de Atención Primaria, y evaluar si el control de presión arterial y de colesterol LDL podía variar según el grupo de riesgo coronario ATP-III. Se consideró buen control de presión arterial cifras menores a 140/90 mmHg (< 130/80 mmHg en diabéticos) y de colesterol LDL los establecidos para ATP-III para cada grupo de riesgo. Resultados. Se incluyeron 12.954 pacientes (49,9% mujeres, 62,1 ± 10,7 años). El 12,6% pertenecía al grupo de bajo riesgo, el 45% al de riesgo medio y el 42,4% al de riesgo alto. El grado de control fue diferente según el grupo de riesgo (p < 0,0001). Así, para la presión arterial se alcanzó en un 37,5% de los sujetos de riesgo bajo, en un 30,2% de los del grupo de riesgo medio y en un 15,4% de los de riesgo alto, y para el colesterol LDL se consiguió en el 65,6% del grupo de riesgo bajo, el 28% del de riesgo medio y el 12,3% del de riesgo alto. Globalmente, si consideramos el control adecuado de presión arterial y de colesterol LDL, sólo el 25,8% de los de bajo riesgo estaba controlado, el 9,6% de los de riesgo medio y el 2,7% de los de riesgo alto. Conclusiones. La mayoría de los hipertensos asistidos diariamente en Atención Primaria en España son de riesgo medio o alto. Las cifras de control de presión arterial y colesterol LDL en los hipertensos en general son bajas y son muy pocos los pacientes que tienen cifras adecuadas de ambos factores de riesgo. Pero las tasas de control son aún peores según aumenta el riesgo coronario; de hecho, menos del 3% de los pacientes de alto riesgo tienen bien controlados ambos parámetros, con las implicaciones clínicas que ello conlleva (AU)

Objectives and methods. The aim of this cross-sectional and multicenter study was to determine the coronary risk of hypertensive patients attended in Spanish Primary Care and to evaluate whether blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates could change according to the ATP-III risk groups. Good blood pressure control was considered <140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg for diabetics) and LDL-c according to the established by ATP-III for every risk group. Results. A total of 12,954 patients were included in the study (49.9 % women, mean age 62.1±10.7 years). Of these, 12.6% belonged to the group of low risk, 45% to the medium risk group and 42.4% to the high risk group. The control rates were different according to the risk group (p <0.0001). Blood pressure control: 37.5 % in low risk, 30.2 % in medium and 15.4 % in high risk group. LDL-c control: 65.6 % in low risk group, 28 % in medium risk group and 12.3 % in high risk group. Only 25.8 % of the patients of low risk were controlled for both blood pressure and LDL-c, 9.6 % of medium risk group and 2.7 % of high risk group. Conclusions. The majority of hypertensive patients daily attended in Primary Care setting in Spain belongs to the medium or high coronary risk groups. Blood pressure and LDL-c controls rates in hypertensive population are low, and very few patients have both risk factors controlled. The control rates decline when the risk increases. In fact, less than 3% of high-risk patients have both parameters well controlled, what may result in significant clinical implications (AU)