Care Gaps in Adherence to Heart Failure Guidelines: Clinical Inertia or Physiological Limitations?

OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the impact of clinical and physiological factors limiting treatment optimization toward recommended medical therapy in heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND Although guidelines aim to assist physicians in prescribing evidence-based therapies and to improve outcomes of patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), gaps in clinical care persist. METHODS Medical records of all patients with HFrEF followed for at least 6 months at the authors' HF clinic (n = 511) allowed for drug optimization and were reviewed regarding the prescription rates of recommended pharmacological agents and devices (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] or cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]). Then, an algorithm integrating clinical (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class, heart rate, blood pressure and biologic parameters (creatinine, serum potassium) based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria of landmark trials guiding these recommendations) was applied for each agent and device to identify potential explanations for treatment gaps. RESULTS Gross prescription rates were high for beta-blod (93.4%), vasodilators (90.3%), ICDs (75.1%), and CRT (821%) among those eligible, except for ivabradine (46.3%, n = 41). However, achievement of target physiological doses was lower (beta-blockers, 67.5%; MRA, 58.9%; and vasodilators, 63.4%), and one-fifth of patient dosages were still being up-titrated. Suboptimal doses were associated with older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.221; p < 0.0001) and history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) (no vs. yes, OR: 0.264; p =0.0336). CONCLUSIONS Gaps in adherence to guidelines exist in specialized HF setting and are mostly explained by limiting physiological factors rather than inertia. Older age and history of stroke/TIA, potential markers of frailty, are associated with suboptimal doses of guideline-directed medical therapy, suggesting that an individualized rather than a "one-size-fits-all" approach may be required. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.