1. |
- Remme, Willem J, et al.
(author)
-
Awareness and perception of heart failure among European cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, and primary care physicians.
- 2008
-
In: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 29:14, s. 1739-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: To assess awareness of heart failure (HF) management recommendations in Europe among cardiologists (C), internists and geriatricians (I/G), and primary care physicians (PCPs). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Study group on HF Awareness and Perception in Europe (SHAPE) surveyed randomly selected C (2041), I/G (1881), and PCP (2965) in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Each physician completed a 32-item questionnaire about the diagnosis and treatment of HF (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%). This report provides an analysis of HF awareness among C, I/G, and PCP. Seventy-one per cent I/G and 92% C use echocardiography, and 43% I/G and 82% C use echo-Doppler as a routine diagnostic test (both P < 0.0001). In contrast, 75% PCP use signs and symptoms to diagnose HF. Fewer I/G would use an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor in >90% of their patients (64 vs. 82% C, P < 0.0001), whereas only 47% PCP would routinely prescribe an ACE-inhibitor. Worsening HF was considered a risk of ACE-inhibitor therapy by 35% PCP. I/G and PCP consistently do not prescribe target ACE-inhibitor doses (P < 0.0001 vs. C). Only 39% I/G would use a beta-blocker in >50% of their patients (vs. 73% C, P < 0.0001). Also, only 5% PCP would always, and 35% often, prescribe a beta-blocker and reach target doses in only 7-29%. Moreover, 34% PCP and 26% I/G vs. 11% C (P < 0.0001) do not start a beta-blocker in patients with mild HF, who are already on an ACE-inhibitor and are on diuretic. In mild, stable HF, 39% PCP and 18% I/G would only prescribe diuretics, vs. 7% C (P < 0.0001). In patients with worsening HF in sinus rhythm and on an optimal ACE-inhibitor, beta-blockade and diuretics, significantly more C would add spironolactone, but I/G would more often add digoxin. CONCLUSION: Although each physician group lacks complete adherence to guideline-recommended management strategies, these are used significantly less well by I, G, and PCPs, indicating the need for education of these essential healthcare providers.
|
|
2. |
- Swedberg, Karl, 1944, et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology
- 2005
-
In: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 26:11, s. 1115-40
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Preamble Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making. A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and by different organizations and other related societies. This profusion can put at stake the authority and validity of guidelines, which can only be guaranteed if they have been developed by an unquestionable decision-making process. This is one of the reasons why the ESC and others have issued recommendations for formulating and issuing Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents. In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents are well defined, recent surveys of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases. It is therefore of great importance that guidelines and recommendations are presented in formats that are easily interpreted. Subsequently, their implementation programmes must also be well conducted. Attempts have been made to determine whether guidelines improve the quality of clinical practice and the utilization of health resources. The ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) supervises and coordinates the preparation of new Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents produced by Task Forces, expert groups, or consensus panels. The chosen experts in these writing panels are asked to provide disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. The Committee is also responsible for the endorsement of these Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents or statements. The Task Force has classified and ranked the usefulness or efficacy of the recommended procedure and/or treatments and the Level of Evidence as indicated in the tables on page 3.
|
|