Why the study?
Optimal medical therapy (OMT) scoring may stratify clinical risk in real-world chronic HFrEF, but patients and long-term outcomes across OMT score-derived treatment groups needed characterization.
Does optimal medical therapy (OMT score ≥4) reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death in outpatients with chronic HFrEF compared to suboptimal treatment?
Does optimal medical therapy (OMT score ≥4) reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death in outpatients with chronic HFrEF compared to suboptimal treatment?
Higher OMT scores, reflecting better use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy, are associated with significantly lower risks of all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients with chronic HFrEF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports OMT optimization in chronic HFrEF; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
Optimal medical therapy (OMT) scoring may stratify clinical risk in real-world chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by integrating use and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFrEF. The purpose of this study was to characterize patients and associated long-term clinical outcomes by OMT score-derived treatment groups. CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) included U.S. outpatients with chronic HFrEF receiving ≥1 GDMT. OMT subgroups were defined as suboptimal (score <3), acceptable (score = 3), and optimal (score ≥4) by baseline use and dose of GDMT, as proposed by the HF Collaboratory consortium. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to assess for all-cause and cardiovascular death across subgroups, after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. The authors studied 4,582 participants enrolled in CHAMP-HF with available 2-year follow-up. Median age was 68 years, 1,327 (29%) were women, and 2,842 (62%) were White, non-Hispanic. Median OMT score across the population was 4 (Q1-Q3: 2-5), and 1,628 (35%) had suboptimal, 665 (14%) had acceptable, and 2,289 (50%) had optimal therapy. Participants with optimal treatment were younger, had higher annual household income, and were enrolled from practices with dedicated HF clinics (all P < 0.001) than participants with acceptable or suboptimal treatment. Participants with optimal treatment had lower all-cause death (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.64-0.92) and cardiovascular death (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65-0.96) than those with suboptimal treatment. Across a large cohort of chronic ambulatory HFrEF, OMT scores stratified risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: