Factors determining angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor underutilization in heart failure in a community setting
Open Access
- 3 February 1998
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in Clinical Cardiology
- Vol. 21 (2) , 103-108
- https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.4960210208
Abstract
Background: Angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were underprescribed for patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) treated in the community setting in the early 1990s despite convincing evidence of benefit.Hypothesis: We postulated that (1) the prevalence of ACE inhibitor use has increased, and (2) prescribing biases have narrowed, as community physicians have gained additional clinical experience with these drugs for treatment of CHF.Methods: We examined rates of ACE inhibitor use among 1, 150 patients with CHF hospitalized at 10 community hospitals in 1995, evaluated determinants of ACE inhibitor prescription, and compared the results with survey data gathered among similar patients during 1992.Results: Compared with 1992, ACE inhibitor use prior to hospital admission was increased among all patients (42 vs. 33%, p < 0.001) and the subset with a history of CHF (53 vs. 39%, p< 0.0005). Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor prescription at hospital discharge also increased among all survivors (64 vs. 51%, p < 0.00005) and the subset eligible for ACE inhibitor treatment based on clinical trial criteria (77 vs. 66%, p = 0.04). Multivariate analysis suggested no change in the prescribing biases previously observed; ACE inhibitor use was related to lower ejection fraction, lower serum creatinine, documentation of left ventricular systolic function, younger patient age, prescription of any diuretic drug, and nonprescription of alternate vasodilators and calcium blockers. In multivariate analyses, physician specialty did not predict ACE inhibitor use.Conclusions: Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor use among patients with CHF is increasing but remains below the 80‐90% rates of drug tolerance documented in randomized clinical trials. This discrepancy is partially explained by the prevalence of renal impairment and “diastolic” heart failure in the community setting. However, age bias, use of alternative vasodilators, and substandard quality of care may also play a role.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart FailureCirculation, 1995
- Quality of life among 5,025 patients with left ventricular dysfunction randomized between placebo and enalapril: The studies of left ventricular dysfunctionJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1994
- Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction as a Cause of Congestive Heart FailureAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1992
- Effect of Captopril on Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction after Myocardial InfarctionNew England Journal of Medicine, 1992
- A Comparison of Enalapril with Hydralazine–Isosorbide Dinitrate in the Treatment of Chronic Congestive Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 1991
- Effect of Enalapril on Survival in Patients with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fractions and Congestive Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 1991
- Tolerability of enalapril in congestive heart failureThe American Journal of Cardiology, 1988
- Effects of Enalapril on Mortality in Severe Congestive Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987
- Comparison of Captopril and Enalapril in Patients with Severe Chronic Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 1986
- A placebo-controlled trial of captopril in refractory chronic congestive heart failureJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1983