Why the study?
Despite advances in heart failure management, national real-world data regarding the quality of care provided were lacking.
Observational (n=943)
Yes
The CAN-HF registry reveals significant gaps in guideline-directed medical therapy and quality-of-care metrics for patients hospitalized with acute heart failure in Canada.
Background: Despite recent advances in the management of patients with heart failure (HF), national data regarding the quality of care provided are lacking. The Canadian Heart Failure (CAN-HF) Registry was designed to obtain contemporary, real-world data describing the management of patients with HF. Methods: Quality of care in patients admitted for acute HF (AHF), in relation to guidelines and national HF quality indicators, was assessed as part of the CAN-HF Registry study. Results: A total of 943 patients admitted to the hospital with AHF were included in this analysis. Patient weight was not recorded on admission for 26% of patients, with daily weight being captured in only 61% of patients. Only 54% of inpatients received left ventricular ejection fraction assessment while hospitalized. Patient education was documented in 31% of patients prior to discharge, with 51% receiving instructions to follow up with a specialist upon discharge, and 2% being referred to a cardiac rehabilitation program. Although use of guideline-directed medical therapy increased during hospitalization, the proportions of patients receiving renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibition (63%), beta-blockade (80%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (40%) upon discharge indicate that potential room for improvement exists. Conclusions: The CAN-HF Registry study demonstrated a potential quality-of-care gap in the management of patients admitted with AHF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Poon et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Acute heart failure (n=943). Hospital admission for acute heart failure was evaluated on Quality of care in relation to guidelines and national HF quality indicators.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: