Why the study?
Acute heart failure impacts millions globally, with clinical outcomes varying based on socio-economic status.
Does socio-economic status modify clinical outcomes and the treatment effect of high-intensity care (rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy) versus usual care on 180-day heart failure readmission or all-cause death in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure?
Does socio-economic status modify clinical outcomes and the treatment effect of high-intensity care (rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy) versus usual care on 180-day heart failure readmission or all-cause death in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: Acute heart failure (AHF) impacts millions globally, with outcomes varying based on socio-economic status (SES). METHODS: SES measured by annual household income, years of education and medical insurance coverage. Each patient's income and education level relative to the median or mean, respectively, in the country was calculated, and categorized into tertiles (0, 1 or 2 from lowest to highest). SES scores (0-5) were computed as the sum of these levels plus insurance coverage (0 = no or 1 = yes). Patients' baseline characteristics, outcomes (HF readmission, death and their composite) and the effect of high-intensity care (HIC) vs. usual care (UC) were examined by SES scores 0-2, 3 and 4-5. RESULTS: Lower SES patients, who were younger, predominantly female, Black and non-European, had fewer comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation, diabetes and ischaemic heart disease and exhibited milder HF, indicated by a lower NYHA class, lower creatinine and higher cholesterol before discharge. Despite having milder HF and less comorbidities, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients with higher SES had numerically better outcomes, though differences were not statistically significant. 180-day hazard ratios (HRs) for HF readmission or death were 0.75 (95% CI 0.48-1.16) for SES scores of 3 and 0.85 (95% CI 0.58-1.23) for scores of 4-5, compared to 0-2. Higher SES patients had numerically better treatment effect from HIC, with HRs of 0.69 for SES 0-2, 0.72 for SES 3 and 0.50 for SES 4-5. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of the STRONG-HF study, lower SES was associated with milder acute HF but similar 180-day outcomes. Higher SES patients benefitted more from HIC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Damasceno et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: