A virtual GDMT Team providing optimization suggestions significantly increased the GDMT optimization score at discharge compared to usual care (+0.58; 95% CI +0.09 to +1.07; P=0.02).
Cohort (n=118)
Does a virtual multidisciplinary GDMT Team improve guideline-directed medical therapy optimization scores at discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF?
A virtual multidisciplinary GDMT team intervention during hospitalizations safely and effectively improved the prescription of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with HFrEF.
Estimación del efecto: Adjusted difference +0.58 (95% CI +0.09 to +1.07)
valor p: p=0.02
AIMS: Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains incomplete. Non-cardiovascular hospitalization may present opportunities for GDMT optimization. We assessed the efficacy and durability of a virtual, multidisciplinary 'GDMT Team' on medical therapy prescription for HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were prospectively identified from 3 February to 1 March 2020 (usual care group) and 2 March to 28 August 2020 (intervention group). Patients with critical illness, de novo heart failure, and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the preceeding 24 hs prior to enrollment were excluded. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-physician GDMT Team provided optimization suggestions to treating teams based on an evidence-based algorithm. The primary outcome was a GDMT optimization score, the sum of positive (+1 for new initiations or up-titrations) and negative therapeutic changes (-1 for discontinuations or down-titrations) at hospital discharge. Serious in-hospital safety events were assessed. Among 278 consecutive encounters with HFrEF, 118 met eligibility criteria; 29 (25%) received usual care and 89 (75%) received the GDMT Team intervention. Among usual care encounters, there were no changes in GDMT prescription during hospitalization. In the intervention group, β-blocker (72% to 88%; P = 0.01), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (6% to 17%; P = 0.03), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16% to 29%; P = 0.05), and triple therapy (9% to 26%; P < 0.01) prescriptions increased during hospitalization. After adjustment for clinically relevant covariates, the GDMT Team was associated with an increase in GDMT optimization score (+0.58; 95% confidence interval +0.09 to +1.07; P = 0.02). There were no serious in-hospital adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cardiovascular hospitalizations are a potentially safe and effective setting for GDMT optimization. A virtual GDMT Team was associated with improved heart failure therapeutic optimization. This implementation strategy warrants testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Bhatt et al. (Fri,) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=118). Virtual GDMT Team vs. Usual care was evaluated on GDMT optimization score (sum of positive and negative therapeutic changes at hospital discharge) (Adjusted difference +0.58, 95% CI +0.09 to +1.07, p=0.02). A virtual GDMT Team providing optimization suggestions significantly increased the GDMT optimization score at discharge compared to usual care (+0.58; 95% CI +0.09 to +1.07; P=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: