eCite Digital Repository

Evaluation of the prescribing practice of guideline-directed medical therapy among ambulatory chronic heart failure patients

Citation

Parajuli, DR and Shakib, S and Eng-Frost, J and McKinnon, RA and Caughey, GE and Whitehead, D, Evaluation of the prescribing practice of guideline-directed medical therapy among ambulatory chronic heart failure patients, BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 21, (1) pp. 1-16. ISSN 1471-2261 (2021) [Refereed Article]


Preview
PDF
1Mb
  

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2021 The Authors. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

DOI: doi:10.1186/s12872-021-01868-z

Abstract

Background: Studies have demonstrated that heart failure (HF) patients who receive direct pharmacist input as part of multidisciplinary care have better clinical outcomes. This study evaluated/compared the difference in prescribing practices of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for chronic HF patients between two multidisciplinary clinics-with and without the direct involvement of a pharmacist.

Methods: A retrospective audit of chronic HF patients, presenting to two multidisciplinary outpatient clinics between March 2005 and January 2017, was performed; a Multidisciplinary Ambulatory Consulting Service (MACS) with an integrated pharmacist model of care and a General Cardiology Heart Failure Service (GCHFS) clinic, without the active involvement of a pharmacist.

Results: MACS clinic patients were significantly older (80 vs. 73 years, p < .001), more likely to be female (p < .001), and had significantly higher systolic (123 vs. 112 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic (67 vs. 60 mmHg, p < .05) blood pressures compared to the GCHF clinic patients. Moreover, the MACS clinic patients showed more polypharmacy and higher prevalence of multiple comorbidities. Both clinics had similar prescribing rates of GDMT and achieved maximal tolerated doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in HFrEF. However, HFpEF patients in the MACS clinic were significantly more likely to be prescribed ACEIs/ARBs (70.5% vs. 56.2%, p = 0.0314) than the GCHFS patients. Patients with both HFrEF and HFpEF (MACS clinic) were significantly less likely to be prescribed β-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Use of digoxin in chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) in MACS clinic was significantly higher in HFrEF patients (82.5% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.004), but the number of people anticoagulated in presence of AF (27.1% vs. 48.0%, p = 0.002) and prescribed diuretics (84.0% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.022) were significantly lower in HFpEF patients attending the MACS clinic. Age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure (SBP), anemia, chronic renal failure, and other comorbidities were the main significant predictors of utilization of GDMT in a multivariate binary logistic regression.

Conclusions: Lower prescription rates of some medications in the pharmacist-involved multidisciplinary team were found. Careful consideration of demographic and clinical characteristics, contraindications for use of medications, polypharmacy, and underlying comorbidities is necessary to achieve best practice.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:heart failure, ejection fraction, guideline-directed medical therapy, pharmacist, multidisciplinary, comorbidities
Research Division:Biomedical and Clinical Sciences
Research Group:Cardiovascular medicine and haematology
Research Field:Cardiology (incl. cardiovascular diseases)
Objective Division:Health
Objective Group:Clinical health
Objective Field:Treatment of human diseases and conditions
UTAS Author:Whitehead, D (Dr Dean Whitehead)
ID Code:146842
Year Published:2021
Web of Science® Times Cited:1
Deposited By:Health Sciences
Deposited On:2021-09-29
Last Modified:2021-10-26
Downloads:4 View Download Statistics

Repository Staff Only: item control page