Key result
Guideline-directed medical therapy implementation was not significantly associated with lower adjusted all-cause mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39-1.02; P=0.06) compared to non-implementation.
Why the study?
Real-world implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy is suboptimal, and its impact on long-term mortality in de novo ischaemic heart failure patients undergoing revascularization required evaluation.
Does guideline-directed medical therapy implementation reduce all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with de novo ischaemic heart failure undergoing revascularization?
Cohort (n=275)
Does guideline-directed medical therapy implementation reduce all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with de novo ischaemic heart failure undergoing revascularization?
Hazard Ratio: 0.63 (95% CI 0.39–1.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 18% vs 42%
p-value: p=0.06
While unadjusted mortality was lower with GDMT implementation, the association was not significant after adjustment, though the combination of GDMT and CABG showed significantly improved outcomes.
AIMS: Guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) remains the cornerstone for treating patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and coronary artery disease (CAD). However, real-world implementation of GDMT (GDMTi) is suboptimal. This subanalysis of the RevascHeart study evaluates the impact of GDMTi on long-term mortality in patients with de novo ischaemic heart failure (HF) undergoing revascularization. METHODS: Among 409 patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%) and CAD, 275 one-year survivors who underwent revascularisation shortly after index HF admission were included in this landmark analysis (LA). GDMTi at 12 months was defined as initiation of each recommended drug class, regardless of dose. Primary endpoints were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality by GDMTi. Secondary endpoints included outcomes by revascularisation strategy and temporal trends in GDMTi. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 41.6 months, all-cause mortality occurred in 29 GDMTi patients (18%) versus 47 non-GDMTi (42%) and cardiovascular mortality in 10% versus 24%, respectively. After adjustment, GDMTi was not significantly associated with lower all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-1.02; P = 0.06] or cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33-1.18; P = 0.14). GDMTi/coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was associated with lower all-cause (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.87; P = 0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.99; P = 0.05). GDMTi use increased progressively over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: GDMTi was associated with lower unadjusted mortality, though not significant after adjustment. GDMTi combined with CABG showed the best outcomes. The use of GDMTi improved over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moliner‐Abós et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Ischaemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and coronary artery disease (n=275). Guideline-directed medical therapy implementation (GDMTi) vs. Non-GDMTi was evaluated on All-cause mortality (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.02, p=0.06). Guideline-directed medical therapy implementation was not significantly associated with lower adjusted all-cause mortality (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39-1.02; P=0.06) compared to non-implementation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: