Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction

Abstract Aims The study aimed at investigating the use of guideline‐recommended diagnostic tools and medication in patients with heart failure (HF) in specialty care in Southwest Finland. We also compared the characteristics of the diagnosed and undiagnosed patients as well as laboratory tests, proc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jenni Huusko, Timo Purmonen, Iiro Toppila, Mariann Lassenius, Heikki Ukkonen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-06-01
Series:ESC Heart Failure
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12665
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832544442489241600
author Jenni Huusko
Timo Purmonen
Iiro Toppila
Mariann Lassenius
Heikki Ukkonen
author_facet Jenni Huusko
Timo Purmonen
Iiro Toppila
Mariann Lassenius
Heikki Ukkonen
author_sort Jenni Huusko
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Aims The study aimed at investigating the use of guideline‐recommended diagnostic tools and medication in patients with heart failure (HF) in specialty care in Southwest Finland. We also compared the characteristics of the diagnosed and undiagnosed patients as well as laboratory tests, procedures, and treatments in everyday clinical practice. Methods and results Patients diagnosed with HF, cardiomyopathy, or hypertension‐induced heart disease (n = 20 878, primary cohort) or not diagnosed with HF but having a record of elevated N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) (>125 ng/L, n = 24 321, secondary cohort) were included in the study from the specialty care patient register of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland during the years 2005–2017. Among patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) code for HF, only 50% had ejection fraction (EF) data to be found by data mining from the electronic health records. Of these patients, 39% (n = 4042) had EF ≤ 40% [HF with reduced EF (HFrEF)] and 61% (n = 6347) had EF > 40%. Elevated NT‐proBNP together with EF > 40% narrowed down the number to 4590 patients, a population defined as HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) patients. HFpEF patients were further stratified into HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 41–50%, n = 1468) and EF > 50% patients (n = 3122) to compare clinical characteristics. NT‐proBNP was higher within the HFrEF patients vs. HFpEF {4580 [inter‐quartile range (IQR): 2065–9765] vs. 2900 [2065–9765] ng/L, P < 0.001}. Baseline co‐morbidities differed between HFpEF and HFrEF groups. Further, HFpEF patients had more procedures and lab tests taken prior to diagnosis than had HFrEF patients. HFmrEF patients were found to resemble more HFrEF than EF > 50% patients. In 70% (n = 17 156) of patients in the secondary cohort, the NT‐proBNP concentrations were >300 ng/L, median was 1090 (IQR 551–2558) ng/L and EF 58.4 ± 12.1% (n with EF available = 6845). Reduced EF was present in 6.8% of patients lacking HF diagnosis. Conclusions Half of the patients with ICD‐10 code for HF did not have EF data available after a visit at specialty care. In particular, the diagnosis of HFpEF seems challenging, reflected as an increase in procedures and laboratory test preceding diagnosis compared with those in HFrEF patients. Also, a large proportion of patients did not have HF diagnosis, yet they presented elevated NT‐proBNP concentrations and clinical characteristics resembling those of HFpEF patients.
format Article
id doaj-art-e5735cf63e6242689084dd0c0dff9b73
institution Kabale University
issn 2055-5822
language English
publishDate 2020-06-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series ESC Heart Failure
spelling doaj-art-e5735cf63e6242689084dd0c0dff9b732025-02-03T10:25:46ZengWileyESC Heart Failure2055-58222020-06-01731039104810.1002/ehf2.12665Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fractionJenni Huusko0Timo Purmonen1Iiro Toppila2Mariann Lassenius3Heikki Ukkonen4Novartis Finland Oy Espoo FinlandNovartis Finland Oy Espoo FinlandMedaffcon Oy Espoo FinlandMedaffcon Oy Espoo FinlandHeart Center Turku University Hospital Turku FinlandAbstract Aims The study aimed at investigating the use of guideline‐recommended diagnostic tools and medication in patients with heart failure (HF) in specialty care in Southwest Finland. We also compared the characteristics of the diagnosed and undiagnosed patients as well as laboratory tests, procedures, and treatments in everyday clinical practice. Methods and results Patients diagnosed with HF, cardiomyopathy, or hypertension‐induced heart disease (n = 20 878, primary cohort) or not diagnosed with HF but having a record of elevated N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) (>125 ng/L, n = 24 321, secondary cohort) were included in the study from the specialty care patient register of the Hospital District of Southwest Finland during the years 2005–2017. Among patients with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD‐10) code for HF, only 50% had ejection fraction (EF) data to be found by data mining from the electronic health records. Of these patients, 39% (n = 4042) had EF ≤ 40% [HF with reduced EF (HFrEF)] and 61% (n = 6347) had EF > 40%. Elevated NT‐proBNP together with EF > 40% narrowed down the number to 4590 patients, a population defined as HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) patients. HFpEF patients were further stratified into HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 41–50%, n = 1468) and EF > 50% patients (n = 3122) to compare clinical characteristics. NT‐proBNP was higher within the HFrEF patients vs. HFpEF {4580 [inter‐quartile range (IQR): 2065–9765] vs. 2900 [2065–9765] ng/L, P < 0.001}. Baseline co‐morbidities differed between HFpEF and HFrEF groups. Further, HFpEF patients had more procedures and lab tests taken prior to diagnosis than had HFrEF patients. HFmrEF patients were found to resemble more HFrEF than EF > 50% patients. In 70% (n = 17 156) of patients in the secondary cohort, the NT‐proBNP concentrations were >300 ng/L, median was 1090 (IQR 551–2558) ng/L and EF 58.4 ± 12.1% (n with EF available = 6845). Reduced EF was present in 6.8% of patients lacking HF diagnosis. Conclusions Half of the patients with ICD‐10 code for HF did not have EF data available after a visit at specialty care. In particular, the diagnosis of HFpEF seems challenging, reflected as an increase in procedures and laboratory test preceding diagnosis compared with those in HFrEF patients. Also, a large proportion of patients did not have HF diagnosis, yet they presented elevated NT‐proBNP concentrations and clinical characteristics resembling those of HFpEF patients.https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12665Heart failureDiagnosisHFpEFHFrEFReal‐world evidence
spellingShingle Jenni Huusko
Timo Purmonen
Iiro Toppila
Mariann Lassenius
Heikki Ukkonen
Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
ESC Heart Failure
Heart failure
Diagnosis
HFpEF
HFrEF
Real‐world evidence
title Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
title_full Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
title_fullStr Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
title_full_unstemmed Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
title_short Real‐world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
title_sort real world clinical diagnostics of heart failure patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction
topic Heart failure
Diagnosis
HFpEF
HFrEF
Real‐world evidence
url https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12665
work_keys_str_mv AT jennihuusko realworldclinicaldiagnosticsofheartfailurepatientswithreducedorpreservedejectionfraction
AT timopurmonen realworldclinicaldiagnosticsofheartfailurepatientswithreducedorpreservedejectionfraction
AT iirotoppila realworldclinicaldiagnosticsofheartfailurepatientswithreducedorpreservedejectionfraction
AT mariannlassenius realworldclinicaldiagnosticsofheartfailurepatientswithreducedorpreservedejectionfraction
AT heikkiukkonen realworldclinicaldiagnosticsofheartfailurepatientswithreducedorpreservedejectionfraction