Dataset Information

Unanswered Questions in Contemporary Heart Failure.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The epidemiology of heart failure (HF) is changing. This study aimed to describe questions that arise during the routine care of HF patients that are unanswered by the current literature and describe how the type and focus of these questions has changed over time. METHODS:Investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Heart Failure Apprentice Network collected and categorized questions from 5 academic hospitals over 12 months. A total of 174 unanswered questions were collected and analyzed. RESULTS:Compared with 2004, there were more unanswered questions about "whether" to use therapies and fewer about "how" to use therapies. There were fewer questions about what therapeutic targets, therapy adjustment, and combination therapies. There were more questions about whether or how to stop therapies and how to add therapies back. Newly prominent topics, not observed in 2004, including novel therapeutics, refractory ventricular tachycardia, right heart failure, and nutrition/frailty, accounted for 24% of questions. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with 2004, there are fewer unanswered questions about how to use, adjust, and combine therapies. There were more unanswered questions about whether and how to stop therapies. Almost 25% of unanswered questions dealt with topics indicative of more advanced disease which were not observed in 2004.

SUBMITTER: Gilstrap LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5843471 | biostudies-other | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unanswered Questions in Contemporary Heart Failure.

Gilstrap Lauren G LG Snipelisky David D AbouEzzeddine Omar O Vader Justin J Cooper Lauren L Kelley Jacob J Perez Antonio A Varian Kenneth K Lala Anuradha A Shah Monica M Stevenson Lynne W LW

Journal of cardiac failure 20170706 10

<h4>Objective</h4>The epidemiology of heart failure (HF) is changing. This study aimed to describe questions that arise during the routine care of HF patients that are unanswered by the current literature and describe how the type and focus of these questions has changed over time.<h4>Methods</h4>Investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored Heart Failure Apprentice Network collected and categorized questions from 5 academic hospitals over 12 months. A total of 174 u ...[more]

PMID: 28689765

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsDespite previous surveys regarding device implantation rates in heart failure (HF), insight into the real-world management with devices is scarce. Therefore, we investigated device implantation rates in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in 34 Dutch centres.Methods and resultsA cross-sectional outpatient registry was conducted in 6666 patients with LVEF < 50% and with information about device implantation available [74 (66-81) years of age; 64% male]. Patients were classified into conventional pacemakers (PM, n = 562), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD, n = 1165), and cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator function (CRT-D, n = 885) or pacemaker function only (CRT-P, n = 248), or no device (n = 3806). Centres were divided into ICD-implanting and CRT-implanting and referral centres. Overall, 17.5% had an ICD, 13.3% CRT-D, 3.7% CRT-P, and 8.4% PM. Of those with LVEF ≤ 30%, 42.5% had ICD or CRT-D therapy. A large variation in implantation rates existed between centres: 3-51% for ICD therapy, 0.3-44% for CRT-D therapy, 0-11% for CRT-P therapy, and 0-25% PM therapy. Implantation centres showed higher implantation rates of ICD, CRT-D, and CRT-P compared with referral centres [36% vs. 25% for defibrillators (ICD or CRT-D) and 17% vs. 9% for CRT devices (CRT-D or CRT-P), respectively, P < 0.001], independently of other factors. A large number of clinical factors were predictive for device usage. Among other, LVEF < 40% and male sex were independent positive predictors for ICD/CRT-D use [odds ratio (OR) = 3.33, P < 0.001; OR = 1.87, P = 0.019, respectively]. Older age was independently associated with less ICD/CRT-D (OR = 0.96 per year, P < 0.001) and more CRT-P/PM use (OR = 1.03 per year, P = 0.006).ConclusionsIn this large Dutch HF registry, less than half of the patients with reduced LVEF received an ICD or CRT, even if LVEF was ≤30%, and a large variation between centres existed. Patients from implantation centres had more often ICD or CRT. More uniformity regarding guideline-based use of device therapy in clinical practice is needed.

Dataset Information

Unanswered Questions in Contemporary Heart Failure.

Publications

Unanswered Questions in Contemporary Heart Failure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets