Nucleo de Insuficiencia Cardiaca, Instituto do Coracao (InCor), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, SP, BR.
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirao Preto, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, BR.
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021 Jan 20;76:e1991. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2021/e1991. eCollection 2021.
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.
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.
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.
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.
本观察性、横断面研究旨在检验心力衰竭(HF)疾病管理计划(DMP)的组成部分是否会影响巴西的护理和临床决策。
调查对象为专家推荐的心脏病专家,并通过印刷表格或电子邮件邀请他们参与调查。调查包括 29 个问题,涉及站点人口统计学、公共与私人基础设施、HF 患者基线数据、HF 临床管理、绩效指标以及 HF 治疗的看法。
数据来自分布在巴西各地的 98 个中心(58%为公共,42%为私人执业)。与私人 HF-DMP 相比,公共 HF-DMP 与更高比例的 HF-DMP 专用服务(79%对 24%;比值比:12,95%CI:94-34)、多学科 HF(MHF)-DMP[84%对 65%;比值比:3;95%CI:1-8]、HF 教育计划(49%对 18%;比值比:4;95%CI:1-2)、书面出院前医嘱(83%对 76%;比值比:1;95%CI:0-5)、康复(69%对 39%;比值比:3;95%CI:1-9)、监测(44%对 29%;比值比:2;95%CI:1-5)、指南指导的 HF 药物治疗使用(94%对 85%;比值比:3;95%CI:0-15)和更少的 B 型利钠肽(BNP)剂量(73%对 88%;比值比:3;95%CI:1-9),以及关键绩效指标(37%对 60%;比值比:3;95%CI:1-7)。与非 MHF-DMP 相比,MHF-DMP 与更多的教育举措(42%对 6%;比值比:12;95%CI:1-97)、书面医嘱(83%对 68%;比值比:2;95%CI:1-7)、康复(69%对 17%;比值比:11;95%CI:3-44)、监测(47%对 6%;比值比:14;95%CI:2-115)、GDMT-HF(92%对 83%;比值比:3;95%CI:0-15)相关。此外,非 MHF 组中 BNP 作为生物标志物的使用(70%对 84%;比值比:2;95%CI:1-8)和关键绩效指标(35%对 51%;比值比:2;95%CI:91.6)较少。医生主要在患者住院或观察到疾病恶化和/或症状时考虑改变或引入新的药物。药物治疗和非药物治疗因素的依从性是与 HF 治疗相关的最大医学问题。
HF-DMP 差异很大。新的 HF 护理策略应考虑到本研究的重点和临床决策过程,以改善 HF 患者的护理。