Key result
Good GDMT adherence is linked to ~15% lower all-cause mortality, confined to LVEF <50%.
Why the study?
How different degrees of adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy affect mortality risk in patients with heart failure across left ventricular ejection fraction spectrums in real-world settings is poorly understood.
Does good adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy reduce all-cause mortality in heart failure patients across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum?
Cohort (n=64,610)
Yes
Does good adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy reduce all-cause mortality in heart failure patients across the left ventricular ejection fraction spectrum?
Hazard Ratio: 0.85 (95% CI 0.8–0.9)
Absolute Event Rate: 120% vs 205%
p-value: p=<0.001
Good adherence to foundational triple-therapy GDMT significantly improves survival in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% (HFrEF and HFmrEF) in real-world practice, but yields no apparent survival benefit in HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%).
Supports prioritizing GDMT adherence in HFrEF/HFmrEF; leaves open causal benefits in HFpEF pending randomized confirmation.
AIMS: How different degrees of adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) affect mortality risk in patients with heart failure (HF) in a real-world clinical setting is poorly understood. This study sought to investigate how different levels of adherence to GDMT were associated with the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with HF across a spectrum of left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs) in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 64 610 HF patients with no missing value of LVEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry were included in the study. Patients were divided according to different LVEFs (<30%, 30-39%, 40-49%, and≥50%) and stratified by an adherence score (good, moderate, or poor) according to the triple, double, and single one usage of GDMT: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. The outcome is time to all-cause mortality. The mean age of the whole cohort was 73.9 ± 12.1 years, and the proportion of patients in LVEF < 30%, 30-39%, 40-49%, and≥50% groups was 27.6%, 26.9%, 22.1%, and 23.3%, respectively. Patients with LVEF < 30% had the highest mortality rate, almost 20% higher than those with LVEF ≥ 50% {hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.80 [0.71-0.90], P < 0.001}. After treatment of GDMT with good adherence, patients with LVEF < 30% had similar mortality to those with LVEF ≥ 50% [HR (95% CI): 0.97 (0.86-1.10), P = 0.664]. However, the percentage of moderate or poor GDMT was alarmingly high, with good adherence only in 20% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Good adherence to GDMT works best in patients with LVEF < 50%, whereas moderate adherence to GDMT varies in efficacy depending on the components of the drug combinations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=64,610). Good adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs. Poor adherence to GDMT was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90, p=<0.001). Good adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy reduced all-cause mortality by 15% (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.90, p<0.001) compared to poor adherence overall, with survival benefits confined to patients with LVEF <50%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: