English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Abstract   Aims  Factors influencing follow‐up referral decisions and their prognostic implications are poorly investigated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction (EF). We assessed (i) the proportion of, (ii) independent predictors of, and (iii) outcomes associated with follow‐up in specialty vs. primary care across the EF spectrum.    Methods and results  We analysed 75 518 patients from the large and nationwide Swedish HF registry between 2000–2018. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify the independent predictors of planned follow‐up in specialty vs. primary care, and multivariable Cox models to assess the association between follow‐up type and outcomes. In this nationwide registry, 48 115 (64%) patients were planned for follow‐up in specialty and 27 403 (36%) in primary care. The median age was 76 [interquartile range (IQR) 67–83] years and 27 546 (36.5%) patients were female. Key independent predictors of planned follow‐up in specialty care included optimized HF care, that is follow‐up in a nurse‐led HF clinic [odds ratio (OR) 4.60, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 4.41–4.79], use of HF devices (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.62–4.40), beta‐blockers (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.32–1.47), renin–angiotensin system/angiotensin‐receptor‐neprilysin inhibitors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15–1.27), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.26–1.37); and more severe HF, that is higher NT‐proBNP (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.20) and NYHA class (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08–1.19). Factors associated with lower likelihood of follow‐up in specialty care included older age (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.28–0.30), female sex (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.86–0.93), lower income (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.76–0.82) and educational level (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.81), higher EF [HFmrEF (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.62–0.68) and HFpEF (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.53–0.58) vs. HFrEF], and higher comorbidity burden, such as presence of kidney disease (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.95), atrial fibrillation (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.81–0.89), and diabetes mellitus (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88–0.96). A planned follow‐up in specialty care was independently associated with lower risk of all‐cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% CI 0.76–0.80] and cardiovascular death (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.73–0.78) across the EF spectrum, but not of HF hospitalization (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03–1.10).    Conclusions  In a large nationwide HF population, referral to specialty care was linked with male sex, younger age, lower EF, lower comorbidity burden, better socioeconomic environment and optimized HF care, and associated with better survival across the EF spectrum. Our findings highlight the need for greater and more equal access to HF specialty care and improved quality of primary care.

Patient profile and outcomes associated with follow‐up in specialty vs. primary care in heart failure