Key result
Accurate HF diagnosis and clinical audits improve guideline adherence and curb inappropriate loop diuretic use.
Why the study?
Despite improvements in heart failure management, clinical practice still faces misdiagnosis, limited effective treatments outside HFrEF, and suboptimal adherence to guideline-recommended therapies and dosing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Practice audits may curb inappropriate diuretic use in HF; leaves open effects on outcomes in prospective studies.
Relevant improvement has been achieved in the last 30 years in the management of patients with heart failure, with the introduction in the current guidelines1,2 of several evidence-based treatments able to reduce the rate of occurrence of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalizations. As a consequence, the patients’ outcomes have shown a favourable trend in the last decades.3,4 However, some further issues need to be tackled and solved: a) there is still the problem of misdiagnosis;5 b) effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments are available just for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); c) even in patients with HFrEF, adherence to the guidelines is suboptimal in terms of prescription of effective treatments but even more in terms of the use of the recommended appropriate dosage,6,7 with evidence that poor compliance has a significant impact on morbidity and mortality of patients treated inappropriately.8,9 Obviously, to address all these issues, the key element is a correct diagnosis of heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aldo Pietro Maggioni (2018) conducted an editorial in Heart failure. Loop diuretics and guideline-directed medical therapy was evaluated. Correct heart failure diagnosis and clinical practice audits are essential to improve suboptimal guideline adherence and avoid inappropriate loop diuretic use.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: