Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines for Heart Failure in Physicians and Their Patients: Lessons From the Heart Failure Adherence Retention Trial (HART)

68Citations
Citations of this article
91Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The Heart Failure Adherence and Retention Trial (HART) provided an opportunity to determine adherence to evidence-based guidelines (EBG) in patients with heart failure (HF). Ten hospitals were the source of 692 patients with HF (EF<40%). Physicians of patients with HF were classified as adherent to EBG if the patient chart audit showed they were on a beta-blocker, ACE-inhibitor (ACE-I), or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Patients were classified as adherent to EBG if MEMS pill caps were used appropriately more than 80% of the time. Sixty-three percent of physicians prescribed evidence-based medications that were adherent to clinical practice guidelines. New York Heart Association (NYHA) III patients were less likely to be adherent (P<0.001), as were those with renal disease (P<0.001) and asthmatics (P<0.001). Nonadherent physicians were less likely to treat patients with beta-blockers (39% vs 98%, P<0.001) and ACE-I or ARBs (71% vs 98%P<0.001). Thirty-seven percent of patients prescribed evidence-based therapy failed to use the MEMS pill cap bottles appropriately and were more likely a minority or higher NYHA class. Adherence to evidence-based therapy is less than optimal in HF patients based on a combination of both physician and patient nonadherence. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Calvin, J. E., Shanbhag, S., Avery, E., Kane, J., Richardson, D., & Powell, L. (2012). Adherence to Evidence-Based Guidelines for Heart Failure in Physicians and Their Patients: Lessons From the Heart Failure Adherence Retention Trial (HART). Congestive Heart Failure, 18(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7133.2011.00263.x

Readers over time

‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘250481216

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 33

65%

Researcher 11

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 4

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 30

59%

Nursing and Health Professions 9

18%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 8

16%

Social Sciences 4

8%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0