Planned follow-up in specialty care was associated with lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.78) and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76) across the heart failure ejection fraction spectrum.
Does planned follow-up in specialty care compared to primary care improve survival and reduce hospitalizations in patients with heart failure?
In a large nationwide cohort, referral to specialty care for heart failure was associated with significantly better survival across all ejection fraction phenotypes compared to primary care.
Abstract Aims Factors influencing follow‐up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow‐up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum. Methods and results We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000–2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow‐up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow‐up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow‐up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 interquartile range (IQR) 67–83 years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow‐up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow‐up in a nurse‐led HF clinic odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41–4.79, use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62–4.40), beta‐blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32–1.47), renin–angiotensin system/angiotensin‐receptor‐neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15–1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26–1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT‐proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08–1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow‐up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28–0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86–0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76–0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.81), higher EF HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62–0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53–0.58) vs. HFrEF, and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81–0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.96). A planned follow‐up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all‐cause hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76–0.80 and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73–0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03–1.10). Conclusions In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.
Lindberg et al. (2022) studied this question. Planned follow-up in specialty care was associated with lower risk of all-cause death (HR 0.78) and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76) across the heart failure ejection fraction spectrum.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: