Department of Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO.
Circ Heart Fail. 2013 Nov;6(6):1132-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.113.000163. Epub 2013 Oct 15.
The objective of this study is to examine practice-level variation in rates of guideline-recommended treatment for outpatients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, and to examine the association between treatment variation and practice site, independent of patient factors.
Cardiology practices participating in the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence registry from July 2008 to December 2010 were evaluated. Practice rates of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and β-blockers and an optimal combined treatment measure were determined for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and no documented contraindications. Multivariable hierarchical regression models were adjusted for demographics, insurance status, and comorbidities. A median rate ratio was calculated for each therapy, which describes the likelihood that the treatment of a patient with given comorbidities would differ at 2 randomly selected practices. We identified 12 556 patients from 45 practices. The unadjusted practice-level prescription rates ranged from 44% to 100% for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (median, 85%; interquartile range, 75%-89%), from 49% to 100% for β-blockers (median, 92%; interquartile range, 83%-95%), and from 37% to 100% for optimal combined treatment (median, 79%; interquartile range, 66%-85%). The adjusted median rate ratio was 1.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.18) for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers therapy, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.15) for β-blockers therapy, and 1.17 (1.13-1.26) for optimal combined treatment.
Variation in the use of guideline-recommended medications for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction exists in the outpatient setting. Addressing practice-level differences may be an important component of improving quality of care for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.
本研究旨在考察门诊心力衰竭射血分数降低患者接受指南推荐治疗的实践水平差异,并考察治疗差异与实践地点之间的关联,而不考虑患者因素。
评估了 2008 年 7 月至 2010 年 12 月期间参加国家心血管疾病登记处实践创新和临床卓越登记处的心脏病学实践。确定了心力衰竭和射血分数降低且无记录禁忌症的患者接受血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂/血管紧张素受体阻滞剂和β受体阻滞剂以及最佳联合治疗措施的治疗率。使用多变量分层回归模型调整了人口统计学、保险状况和合并症。为每种治疗方法计算了中位数率比,该比值描述了在 2 个随机选择的实践中,给定合并症患者接受治疗的可能性。我们从 45 个实践中确定了 12556 名患者。未调整的实践水平处方率范围为血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂/血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(中位数为 85%;四分位距为 75%-89%)为 44%至 100%,β受体阻滞剂(中位数为 92%;四分位距为 83%-95%)为 49%至 100%,最佳联合治疗(中位数为 79%;四分位距为 66%-85%)为 37%至 100%。调整后的中位数率比为血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂/血管紧张素受体阻滞剂治疗的 1.11(95%置信区间,1.08-1.18),β受体阻滞剂治疗的 1.08(95%置信区间,1.05-1.15)和最佳联合治疗的 1.17(1.13-1.26)。
在门诊环境中,心力衰竭射血分数降低患者指南推荐药物的使用存在差异。解决实践水平差异可能是改善心力衰竭和射血分数降低患者护理质量的重要组成部分。