International journal of cardiology · 2021
Non-cardiology vs. cardiology care of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction is associated with lower use of guideline-based care and higher mortality: Observations from The Swedish Heart Failure Registry.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kapelios Chris J, Canepa Marco, Benson Lina, Hage Camilla, Thorvaldsen Tonje, Dahlström Ulf, Savarese Gianluigi, Lund Lars H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) are often cared for by non-cardiologists. The implications are unknown.
METHODS: In a nationwide HF cohort with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we compared demographics, clinical characteristics, guideline-based therapy use and outcomes in non-cardiology vs. cardiology in-patient and out-patient care.
RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2016, 36,076 patients with HFrEF were enrolled in the Swedish HF registry (19,337 [54%] in-patients overall), with 44% of in-patients and 45% of out-patients managed in non-cardiology settings. Predictors of treatment in non-cardiology were age > 75 years (adjusted odds ratio for non-cardiology 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27), lower education level (0.71; 0.66-0.76 for university vs. compulsory), valve disease (1.24; 1.18-1.31) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (1.05; 1.00-1.10). Non-cardiology care was significantly associated with lower use of beta-blockers (0.80; 0.74-0.86) and devices (intracardiac defibrillator [ICD] and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]: 0.63; 0.56-0.71), and less frequent specialist follow-up (0.61; 0.57-0.65). Over 1-year follow-up the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 1.03-1.15) was higher but the risk of first HF (re-) hospitalization was lower (0.93; 0.89-0.97) in non-cardiology vs. cardiology care.
CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, non-cardiology care was independently associated with older ageand lower education. After covariate adjustment, non-cardiology care was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and devices, higher mortality, and lower risk of HF hospitalization. Access to cardiology care may not be equitable and this may have implications for use of guideline-based care and outcomes.
METHODS: In a nationwide HF cohort with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we compared demographics, clinical characteristics, guideline-based therapy use and outcomes in non-cardiology vs. cardiology in-patient and out-patient care.
RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2016, 36,076 patients with HFrEF were enrolled in the Swedish HF registry (19,337 [54%] in-patients overall), with 44% of in-patients and 45% of out-patients managed in non-cardiology settings. Predictors of treatment in non-cardiology were age > 75 years (adjusted odds ratio for non-cardiology 1.20; 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27), lower education level (0.71; 0.66-0.76 for university vs. compulsory), valve disease (1.24; 1.18-1.31) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (1.05; 1.00-1.10). Non-cardiology care was significantly associated with lower use of beta-blockers (0.80; 0.74-0.86) and devices (intracardiac defibrillator [ICD] and/or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]: 0.63; 0.56-0.71), and less frequent specialist follow-up (0.61; 0.57-0.65). Over 1-year follow-up the risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.09; 1.03-1.15) was higher but the risk of first HF (re-) hospitalization was lower (0.93; 0.89-0.97) in non-cardiology vs. cardiology care.
CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, non-cardiology care was independently associated with older ageand lower education. After covariate adjustment, non-cardiology care was associated with lower use of beta-blockers and devices, higher mortality, and lower risk of HF hospitalization. Access to cardiology care may not be equitable and this may have implications for use of guideline-based care and outcomes.