Back to Search Start Over

Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

Authors :
Bocchi EA
Moreira HT
Nakamuta JS
Simões MV
Casas AAL
Costa ARD
Assis AV
Durães AR
Pereira-Barretto AC
Ravessa ADA
Macedo AVS
Biselli B
Pinto CMN
Filho CRH
Costantini CR
Almeida DR
Santos EGD Jr
Soliva Junior E
Figueiredo EL
Albuquerque FN
Paulitsch F
Neuenschwander FC
Figueiredo Neto JA
Brito FS
Lopes HF
Villacorta H
Souza Neto JD
Sepulveda JM
Ayoub JCA
Vilela-Martin JF
Cardoso JN
Uemura L
Moura LZ
Maia LN
Oliveira LB
Maia L
Silva LBD
Gowdak LHW
Danzmann LC
Andrade M
Braile-Sternieri MCVB
Moreira MDCV
França Neto OR
Filho ORC
Esteves PF
Raupp-da-Rosa P
Silva RJQE
Mourilhe-Rocha R
Viégas RFM
Rassi S
Mangili S
Kaiser SE
Martins SM
Kawabata VS
Source :
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) [Clinics (Sao Paulo)] 2021 Jan 20; Vol. 76, pp. e1991. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Jan 20 (Print Publication: 2021).
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Objectives: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil.<br />Methods: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment.<br />Results: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment.<br />Conclusion: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1980-5322
Volume :
76
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
33503176
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2021/e1991