Real-world implementation of guidelines for heart failure management: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Hellenic Journal of Cardiology, ISSN: 1109-9666, Vol: 66, Page: 72-79
2022
- 9Citations
- 27Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef6
- Captures27
- Readers27
- 27
Review Description
The real-world implementation of heart failure (HF) guidelines remains unclear. Our present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the rate of HF patients receiving guideline-directed treatment to identify the proportion of under-treatment patients and those who are treated with optimal doses, to evaluate the correlation of under-treatment patients' characteristics with the prescribed therapy, and finally, to evaluate the combined effect of the above on incidental mortality and rehospitalization. We conducted a systematic review of the literature indexed in Medline. We screened 1224 papers and excluded 1166 as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 58 papers, which were evaluated by studying the full text, 11 papers that referred to 45866 patients were finally studied in this work. Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibitor (ACEI) and Angiotensin II-Receptor Blocker (ARB) use was estimated to be 80.9% (95% CI: 73.9%, 86.4%), β-blockers’ use was 78% (95% CI: 70.4%, 84.1%), Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists' use was 47.4% (95% Cl 41.6%, 53.4%), and cardiac resynchronization therapy's use was 5.8% (95% Cl 3.4%, 9.6%). Meta-regression analysis showed that prescription of more than the half of target dose of ACEI/ARBs was found to be associated with reduced all-cause mortality (Z = −3.61, P = 0.0003), while the relationship with β-blockers was borderline (Z = −1.56, P = 0.11). A satisfactory adherence to the prescription of guideline-recommended treatment in patients with HF was observed. However, the under titration of the life-saving HF drugs need to be improved as only ultimate adherence to guideline-directed treatments may lead to the reduction of HF burden.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1109966622000604; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjc.2022.04.006; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132445244&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35508296; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1109966622000604; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hjc.2022.04.006
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know