Management of congestive heart failure: a gender gap may still exist. Observations from a contemporary cohort

BACKGROUND: Unlike other cardiovascular diseases the incidence and prevalence of congestive heart failure (CHF) continues to increase. While gender differences in coronary artery disease have been well described, to date, there has been a relative paucity of similar data in patients with CHF. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the profile and management of patients with CHF at a tertiary care centre to determine if a gender difference exists. METHODS: A chart review was performed at a tertiary care centre on consecutive patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of CHF between June 1997 and 1998. Co-morbidity, diagnostic investigations, and management of CHF were recorded. Comparisons between male and female patients were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred and forty five patients were reviewed. There were 80 male (M) and 65 female (F) patients of similar age [71.6 vs. 71.3 (M vs. F), p = NS]. Male patients were more likely to have had a previous myocardial infarction (66% vs. 35%, p < 0.01) and revascularization (41% vs. 20%, p < 0.05), and had worse left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) than women, [median LVEF 3 vs. 2 (M vs. F), p < 0.01]. Male patients were more likely to have a non-invasive assessment of left ventricular (LV) function [85% vs. 69%, (M vs. F), p < 0.05]. A logistic regression analysis suggests that amongst those without coronary disease, males were more likely to receive non-invasive testing. There were no differences in the use of prescribed medications, in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that there seem to be important gender differences in the profile and management of patients with CHF. Importantly women were less likely to have an evaluation of LV function. As assessment of LV function has significant implications on patient management, this data justifies the need for larger studies to assess gender differences in CHF profile and treatment

A randomized trial to assess the impact of an antithrombotic decision aid in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the DAAFI trial protocol [ISRCTN14429643]

BACKGROUND: Decision aids are often advocated as a means to assist patient and health care provider decision making when faced with complicated treatment or screening decisions. Despite an exponential growth in the availability of decision aids in recent years, their impact on long-term treatment decisions and patient adherence is uncertain due to a paucity of rigorous studies. The choice of antithrombotic therapy for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is one condition for which a trade-off exists between the potential risks and benefits of competing therapies, and the need to involve patients in decision making has been clearly identified. This study will evaluate whether an evidence-based patient decision aid for patients with NVAF can improve the appropriateness of antithrombotic therapy use by patients and their family physicians. DESIGN: A multi-center, two-armed cluster randomized trial based in community family practices in which patients with NVAF will be randomized to decision aid or usual care. Patients will receive one of four decision aids depending on their baseline stroke risk. The primary outcome is the provision of "appropriate antithrombotic therapy" at 3 months to study participants (appropriateness defined as per the 2001 American College of Chest Physicians recommendations for NVAF). In addition, the impact of this decision aid on patient knowledge, decisional conflict, well-being, and adherence will be assessed after 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months

A cluster randomized trial to assess the impact of opinion leader endorsed evidence summaries on improving quality of prescribing for patients with chronic cardiovascular disease: rationale and design [ISRCTN26365328]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although much has been written about the influence of local opinion leaders on clinical practice, there have been few controlled studies of their effect, and almost none have attempted to change prescribing in the community for chronic conditions such as heart failure (HF) or ischemic heart disease (IHD). These two conditions are common and there is very good evidence about how to best prevent morbidity and mortality – and good evidence that quality of care is, in general, suboptimal. Practice audits have demonstrated that about one-half of eligible HF patients are prescribed ACE inhibitors (with fewer still reaching appropriate target doses) and less than one-third of patients with established IHD are prescribed statins (with many fewer reaching recommended cholesterol targets). It is apparent that interventions to improve quality of prescribing are urgently needed. We hypothesized that an intervention that consisted of patient-specific one-page evidence summaries, generated and then endorsed by local opinion leaders, would be able to change prescribing practices of community-based primary care physicians.</p> <p>Methods (study design)</p> <p>A pragmatic single-centre cluster randomized controlled trial comparing an opinion leader-based intervention to usual care for patients with HF or IHD. Randomization will be clustered at the level of the primary care physician; as the design effect is anticipated to be negligible, the unit of analysis will be the patient. Patients with HF or IHD (not receiving ACE inhibitors or statins, respectively) will be recruited from community pharmacies and allocated to intervention or usual care based on the randomization status of their primary care physician. The primary outcome is improvement in prescription of proven efficacious therapies for HF (ACE inhibitors) or IHD (statins) within 6 months of the intervention.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>If the methods used in this intervention are found to improve prescribing practices, similar interventions could be designed for other chronic conditions dealt with in the outpatient setting.</p