Why the study?
It was unknown whether female sex, low socio-economic status, and remoteness are associated with lower prescription of evidence-based therapy and higher mortality in moderate-severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Do traditional markers of disadvantage (female sex, low SES, and remoteness) affect the prescription of evidence-based therapy and overall survival in patients with HFrEF?
Do traditional markers of disadvantage (female sex, low SES, and remoteness) affect the prescription of evidence-based therapy and overall survival in patients with HFrEF?
In an Australian cohort of HFrEF patients, sex, socio-economic status, and remoteness did not significantly impact the delivery of evidence-based therapies or overall survival.
Equity in HFrEF therapy and survival by sex seen in this cohort; leaves open effects of SES/remoteness on outcomes.
Aims This study aims to determine if traditional markers of disadvantage [female sex, low socio-economic status (SES), and remoteness] are associated with lower prescription of evidence-based therapy and higher mortality among patients with moderate–severe heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Methods and results We recruited 452 consecutive class II–III heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients. Baseline clinical data were recorded prospectively. The primary outcome was the association of female sex on overall survival. Secondary outcomes included association between evidence-based therapy delivery and sex and association of SES and remoteness on heart failure therapy and survival. The Australian Bureau of Statistics generated all indices. Median follow-up was 37.9 months. One hundred and nine patients (24.3%) were women. There was no difference in overall survival based on sex (hazard ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.74–1.92, 0.48). There was no difference in prescription of beta-blockers [χ2(1) = 0.91, 0.66], angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [χ2(1) = 0.001, 0.97], nor aldosterone antagonists [χ2(1) = 2.71, 0.10]. There was no difference in rates of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in men compared with women [χ2(1) = 0.35, 0.56]. Neither higher SES nor inner city residence conferred an overall survival benefit. Conclusions In this Australian cohort of heart failure patients, delivery of care and likelihood of death are comparable between the sexes, SES groups, and rural vs. city residents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gutman et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: