Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to assess the quality of care for heart failure patients who are hospitalized for all causes. BACKGROUND: Performance measures for heart failure target patients with a principal diagnosis of heart failure. However, patients with heart failure are commonly hospitalized for other causes and may benefit from treatments such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. METHODS: We assessed rates of compliance with care measures for patients hospitalized with acute or chronic heart failure in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities) study surveillance catchment area from 2005 to 2009. Rates of compliance were compared between patients with a principal discharge diagnosis of heart failure and those with another principal discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 4,345 hospitalizations of heart failure patients, 39.6% carried a principal diagnosis of heart failure. Patients with a principal heart failure diagnosis had higher rates of LV function assessment (89.1% vs. 82.5%; adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]: 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.10) and discharge ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in LV dysfunction (64.1% vs. 56.3%; aPR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.20) as compared to patients hospitalized for another cause. LV assessment and ACE inhibitor/ARB use were associated with reductions in 1-year post-discharge mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.85; adjusted odds ratio: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.96, respectively) that did not differ for patients with versus without a principal heart failure diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individuals hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of heart failure, heart failure patients hospitalized for other causes were less likely to receive guideline recommended care. Quality initiatives may improve care by targeting hospitalizations with either principal or secondary heart failure diagnoses.

Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is a complex clinical event associated with excess morbidity and mortality. Managing ADHF patients is challenging because of the lack of effective treatments that both reduce symptoms and improve clinical outcomes. Existing guideline recommendations are largely based on expert opinion, but several recently published trials have yielded important data to inform both current clinical practice and future research directions. New insight has been gained regarding volume management, including dosing strategies for intravenous loop diuretics and the role of ultrafiltration in patients with heart failure and renal dysfunction. Although the largest ADHF trial to date (ASCEND-HF, using nesiritide) was neutral, promising results with other investigational agents have been reported. If these findings are confirmed in phase III trials, novel compounds, such as relaxin, omecamtiv mecarbil, and ularitide, among others, may become therapeutic options. Translation of research findings into quality clinical care can not be overemphasized. Although many gaps in knowledge exist, ongoing studies will address issues around delivery of evidence-based care to achieve the goal of improving the health status and clinical outcomes of patients with ADHF.