4.5 Article

Is the gap between guidelines and clinical practice in heart failure treatment being filled?: Insights from the IMPACT RECO survey

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 9, Issue 12, Pages 1205-1211

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2007.09.008

Keywords

chronic heart failure; drug prescription; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors; beta-blockers; angiotensin 2 receptor blockers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Recent registries have shown that recommended drugs for the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) are under-prescribed in daily practice. Aims: To determine prescription rates of CHF drugs, and to assess predictive factors for drug prescription using data from a large panel of French cardiologists. Methods and results: We included 1919 outpatients, with NYHA class II-IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%. The most frequently prescribed drugs were diuretics (83%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) (71%), beta-blockers (65%), spironolactone (35%) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (21%); 61% of patients received a combination of a beta-blocker and an ACE-I or ARB. Target doses were reached in 49% of the patients for ACE-I, but in only 18% for beta-blockers and in 9% for ARBs. Multivariate analyses showed that age > 75 years was an independent factor associated with under-prescription of ACE-I-ARBs, beta-blockers or spironolactone. Renal failure was associated with a lower prescription of ACE-I-ARB and spironolactone, and asthma was a predictor of under-prescription of beta-blockers. Conclusions: In this contemporary survey, prescription rates of CHF drugs were higher than previously reported. However, dosages were lower than those recommended in guidelines. Age remained an independent predictor of under-prescription of CHF drugs. (c) 2007 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available