Differences in provider approach to initiating and titrating guideline directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Abstract

Abstract Background Despite the strong evidence supporting guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), prescription rates in clinical practice are still lacking. Methods A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with HFrEF was answered by a national sample of 127 cardiologists and 68 internal/family medicine physicians. Each vignette had 4–5 options for adjusting GDMT and the option to make no medication changes. Survey respondents could only select one option. For analysis, responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest. Results Cardiologists were more likely to make GDMT changes than general medicine physicians (91.8% vs. 82.0%; OR 1.84 [1.07–3.19]; p = 0.020). Cardiologists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers (46.3% vs. 32.0%; OR 2.38 [1.18–4.81], p = 0.016), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) (63.8% vs. 48.1%; OR 1.76 [1.01–3.09], p = 0.047), and hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (HYD/ISDN) (38.2% vs. 23.7%; OR 2.47 [1.48–4.12], p < 0.001) compared to general medicine physicians. No differences were found in initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARBs), initiating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sodium-glucose transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, digoxin, or ivabradine. Conclusions Our results demonstrate cardiologists were more likely to adjust GDMT than general medicine physicians. Future focus on improving GDMT prescribing should target providers other than cardiologists to improve care in patients with HFrEF.

Keywords

• Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT)
• Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)
• Evidence-based therapy
• Medications