Key result
Non-cardiology care for HFrEF was associated with lower use of guideline-based therapies and a higher risk of 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.15) compared to cardiology care.
Why the study?
Patients with HF are often cared for by non-cardiologists, but the clinical implications of this practice were unknown.
Does management in non-cardiology settings compared to cardiology settings affect mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=36,076)
Yes
Does management in non-cardiology settings compared to cardiology settings affect mortality and heart failure hospitalization in patients with HFrEF?
Hazard Ratio: 1.09 (95% CI 1.03–1.15)
Management of HFrEF patients in non-cardiology settings is associated with lower use of guideline-directed medical therapy and devices, and higher 1-year all-cause mortality compared to cardiology care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Non-cardiologist HFrEF care may differ in therapy use; leaves open outcome impact and needs prospective confirmation.
Kapelios et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=36,076). Non-cardiology care vs. Cardiology care was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.15). Non-cardiology care for HFrEF was associated with lower use of guideline-based therapies and a higher risk of 1-year all-cause mortality (HR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.15) compared to cardiology care.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: