MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392763089 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3373

Evaluation of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Outpatients Living with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

2024· article· en· W4392763089 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Taylor McVannel, Lori Albers, Lynette Kosar, Brittani Reid, Colin Yeung, Muhammad Siddiqui, Oleksandr Baran

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HealthFoothills Medical CentreSaskatchewan Health AuthorityBrandon Regional Health Authority
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureDosingGuidelinePharmacistMedical therapyInternal medicineFamily medicinePharmacyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Heart Failure Society have defined guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) as 4 foundational medications. Despite strong recommendations for use of GDMT in HFrEF, current practice alignment with guidelines is unknown. Objectives: The primary objectives were to determine the proportion of patients for whom optimized GDMT for HFrEF was prescribed, to describe the doses of foundational medications achieved, and to describe any documented rationale limiting the optimization of GDMT. The secondary objectives were to describe documented pharmacist activities outside of scheduled multidisciplinary appointments at the heart function clinic (HFC) and to describe heart failure–related hospital encounters in 2021. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using medical records of patients with HFrEF who were receiving treatment at the Regina HFC as of December 31, 2021, was conducted. Results: Of the 129 patients included in the study, 61 (47.3%) were prescribed optimized GDMT. Specifically, within the individual foundational medication classes, 82.2% (106/129), 80.6% (104/129), 79.1% (102/129), and 74.4% (96/129) of patients received optimized therapy with a renin– angiotensin system inhibitor, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, β-blocker, and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, respectively. Documented rationale was not available in 35.8% (38/106) of instances of suboptimal utilization of GDMT and in 41.7% (60/144) of instances of suboptimal dosing of GDMT. The most common documented rationale for suboptimal utilization was intolerance to the medication (33.0% [35/106]), and the most common rationale for suboptimal dosing was intolerance to dose increases (57.6% [83/144]). Pharmacists documented a total of 553 patient care activities for 58.9% (76/129) of the patients, outside scheduled multidisciplinary appointments in the HFC. Sixteen patients (12.4%) had heart failure–related hospital encounters a total of 31 times in 2021. Conclusions: Although many patients were receiving the benefits of multidisciplinary care at the Regina HFC, there remained a treatment gap in the use of GDMT for HFrEF. These findings will be used to inform strategies to improve clinic processes, including efficient identification of patients requiring optimization of GDMT, who would benefit the most from multidisciplinary care. Keywords: heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, guideline-directed medical therapy, heart function clinic, multidisciplinary clinic, pharmacist activities, hospitalization RÉSUMÉ Contexte : La pharmacothérapie est la pierre angulaire du traitement de l’insuffisance cardiaque avec fraction d’éjection réduite (ICFEr). La Société cardiovasculaire du Canada et la Société canadienne d’insuffisance cardiaque ont défini le traitement médical fondé sur les lignes directrices (TMFLD) selon 4 médicaments fondamentaux. Malgré de fortes recommandations pour l’utilisation du TMFLD dans l’ICFEr, l’alignement actuel de la pratique sur les lignes directrices est inconnu. Objectifs : Les objectifs principaux étaient de déterminer la proportion de patients pour lesquels un TMFLD optimisé pour l’ICFEr avait été prescrit, de décrire les doses obtenues et de décrire les justifications documentées limitant l’optimisation du TMFLD. Les objectifs secondaires, quant à eux, étaient de décrire les activités documentées du pharmacien en dehors des rendez-vous prévus à la clinique multidisciplinaire de fonction cardiaque et de recenser les consultations hospitalières liées à l’insuffisance cardiaque au cours de l’année civile 2021. Méthodes : Cette étude de cohorte rétrospective se basait sur les dossiers médicaux de patients atteints d’ICFEr qui recevaient un traitement à la clinique de fonction cardiaque de Regina au 31 décembre 2021. Résultats : Sur les 129 patients inclus dans l’étude, 61 d’entre eux (47,3 %) ont reçu un TMFLD optimisé. Plus précisément, en ce qui concerne les classes de médicaments fondamentaux, 82,2 % (106/129) ont reçu un traitement optimal avec un inhibiteur du système rénine-angiotensine, 80,6 % (104/129) avec un antagoniste des récepteurs minéralocorticoïdes, 79,1 % (102/129) avec un β-bloquant et 74,4 % (96/129) avec un inhibiteur sodique du cotransporteur de glucose 2. Dans 35,8 % (38/106) des cas d’utilisation sous-optimale du TMFLD et dans 41,7 % (60/144) des cas de dosage sous-optimal de celui-ci, la justification documentée était indisponible. Lorsqu’elles étaient documentées, les justifications les plus courantes étaient l’intolérance, respectivement, à l’utilisation d’un médicament (33.0% [35/106]) et à l’augmentation de la dose (57,6 % [83/144]). Les pharmaciens ont consigné un total de 553 activités de soins aux patients pour 58,9 % (76/129) des patients en dehors des rendez-vous multidisciplinaires prévus dans la clinique de fonction cardiaque. Seize (12,4 %) des patients ont été hospitalisés pour une insuffisance cardiaque 31 fois au total en 2021. Conclusion : Bien que de nombreux patients bénéficiaient des soins multidisciplinaires à la clinique de fonction cardiaque de Regina, une lacune subsistait dans le traitement par rapport à l’utilisation du TMFLD pour l’ICFEr. Ces résultats seront utilisés pour éclairer les stratégies visant à améliorer les processus cliniques, y compris l’identification efficace des patients nécessitant une optimisation du TMFLD, qui bénéficieraient le plus de soins multidisciplinaires. Mots-clés : insuffisance cardiaque avec fraction d’éjection réduite, traitement médical fondé sur les lignes directrices, clinique de la fonction cardiaque, clinique multidisciplinaire, activités du pharmacien, hospitalisation

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207