Gender Differences in Utilization of Specialized Heart Failure Clinics

Gender inequalities in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite significant progress in cardiovascular disease (CVD) management, it remains a public health priority and a global challenge. Within the disease process, health care after a cardiovascular event (secondary prevention) is essential to prevent recurrences. Nonetheless, evidence has suggested the existence of gender disparities in CVD management, leaving women in a vulnerable situation. The objective of this study is to identify all available evidence on the existence of gender differences in health care attention after a major adverse cardiovascular event.

METHODS

A scoping review following the structure of PRISMA-ScR was conducted. To define the inclusion criteria, we used Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) population, concept, context framework for scoping reviews. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane. The methods of this review are registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY) (INPLASY202350084).

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 3,322 studies. 26 articles were identified manually. After the reviewing process, 93 articles were finally included. The main intervention studied was the pharmacological treatment received (n = 61, 66%), distantly followed by guideline-recommended care (n = 26, 28%) and cardiac rehabilitation (CR) referral (n = 16)". Literature described gender differences in care and management of secondary prevention of CVD. Women were less frequently treated with guideline-recommended medications and seem more likely to be non-adherent. When analysing guideline recommendations, women were more likely to make dietary changes, however, men were more likely to increase physical activity. Studies also showed that women had lower rates of risk factor testing and cholesterol goals attainment. Female sex was associated with lower rates of cardiac rehabilitation referral and participation.

CONCLUSIONS

This review allowed us to compile knowledge on the existence of gender inequalities on the secondary prevention of CVD. Additional research is required to delve into various factors influencing therapeutic disparities, referral and non-participation in CR programs, among other aspects, in order to improve existing knowledge about the management and treatment of CVD in men and women. This approach is crucial to ensure the most equitable and effective attention to this issue.

Factors Affecting Healthcare Provider Referral to Heart Function Clinics: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) care providers are gatekeepers for patients to appropriately access lifesaving HF clinics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate referring providers' perceptions regarding referral to HF clinics, including the impact of provider specialty and the coronavirus disease pandemic.

METHODS

An exploratory, sequential design was used in this mixed-methods study. For the qualitative stage, semistructured interviews were performed with a purposive sample of HF providers eligible to refer (ie, nurse practitioners, cardiologists, internists, primary care and emergency medicine physicians) in Ontario. Interviews were conducted via Microsoft Teams. Transcripts were analyzed concurrently by 2 researchers independently using NVivo, using a deductive-thematic approach. Then, a cross-sectional survey of similar providers across Canada was undertaken via REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), using an adapted version of the Provider Attitudes toward Cardiac Rehabilitation and Referral scale.

RESULTS

Saturation was achieved upon interviewing 7 providers. Four themes arose: knowledge about clinics and their characteristics, providers' clinical expertise, communication and relationship with their patients, and clinic referral process and care continuity. Seventy-three providers completed the survey. The major negative factors affecting referral were skepticism regarding clinic benefit (4.1 ± 0.9/5), a bad patient experience and believing they are better equipped to manage the patient (both 3.9). Cardiologists more strongly endorsed clarity of referral criteria, referral as normative and within-practice referral supports as supporting appropriate referral versus other professionals ( P s < .02), among other differences. One-third (n = 13) reported the pandemic impacted their referral practices (eg, limits to in-person care, patient concerns).

CONCLUSION

Although there are some legitimate barriers to appropriate clinic referral, greater provider education and support could facilitate optimal patient access.

Sex‐related differences in left ventricular assist device utilization and outcomes: results from the PCHF‐VAD registry

AIMS

Data on sex and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) utilization and outcomes have been conflicting and mostly confined to US studies incorporating older devices. This study aimed to investigate sex-related differences in LVAD utilization and outcomes in a contemporary European LVAD cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This analysis is part of the multicentre PCHF-VAD registry studying continuous-flow LVAD patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventricular arrhythmias, right ventricular failure, bleeding, thromboembolism, and the haemocompatibility score. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess associations between sex and outcomes. Overall, 457 men (81%) and 105 women (19%) were analysed. At LVAD implant, women were more often in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 or 2 (55% vs. 41%, P = 0.009) and more often required temporary mechanical circulatory support (39% vs. 23%, P = 0.001). Mean age was comparable (52.1 vs. 53.4 years, P = 0.33), and median follow-up duration was 344 [range 147-823] days for women and 435 [range 190-816] days for men (P = 0.40). No significant sex-related differences were found in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79 for female vs. male sex, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.50-1.27]). Female LVAD patients had a lower risk of ventricular arrhythmias (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.33-0.95]) but more often experienced right ventricular failure. No significant sex-related differences were found in other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary European cohort of LVAD patients, far fewer women than men underwent LVAD implantation despite similar clinical outcomes. This is important as the proportion of female LVAD patients (19%) was lower than the proportion of females with advanced HF as reported in previous studies, suggesting underutilization. Also, female patients were remarkably more often in INTERMACS profile 1 or 2, suggesting later referral for LVAD therapy. Additional research in female patients is warranted.

Disparities in heart transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Heart transplantation remains the gold standard therapy for end stage heart failure, but barriers remain, preventing equitable access to and affecting outcomes following transplantation. The objective of this review is to summarize current and historical literature on the disparities that persist, and to highlight the gaps in evidence for further investigation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although progress has been made to increase the rates of advanced heart failure therapies to racial/ethnic minority populations and those with lower socioeconomic status, differential access and outcomes remain. The disparities that persist are categorized by patient demographics, social influences, geopolitical factors, and provider bias.

SUMMARY

Disparities in heart transplantation exist, which span a wide spectrum. Healthcare professionals need to be cognizant of these disparities that patients face in terms of access to and outcomes for heart transplantation. Further research and system changes are needed to make heart transplantation a fairer option for patients of varying backgrounds with end stage heart failure.

Heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across health care settings: an observational study

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the sex-specific distribution of heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across three health care settings.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this descriptive observational study, we retrieved the distribution of HF types [with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] for men and women between 65 and 79 years of age in three health care settings from a single country: (i) patients with screening-detected HF in the high-risk community (i.e. those with shortness of breath, frailty, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) from four screening studies, (ii) patients with confirmed HF from primary care derived from a single observational study, and (iii) patients with confirmed HF from outpatient cardiology clinics participating in a registry. Among 1407 patients from the high-risk community, 288 had screen-detected HF (15% HFrEF, 12% HFmrEF, 74% HFpEF), and 51% of the screen-detected HF patients were women. In both women (82%) and men (65%), HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type. In the routine general practice population (30 practices, 70 000 individuals), among the 160 confirmed HF cases, 35% had HFrEF, 23% HFmrEF, and 43% HFpEF, and in total, 43% were women. In women, HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type (52%), while in men, this was HFrEF (41%). In outpatient cardiology clinics (n = 34), of the 4742 HF patients (66% HFrEF, 15% HFmrEF, 20% HFpEF), 36% were women. In both women (56%) and men (71%), HFrEF was the most prevalent HF type.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HF types and sex distribution vary considerably in HF patients of 65-79 years of age among health care settings. From the high-risk community through to general practice to the cardiology outpatient setting, there is a shift in HF type from HFpEF to HFrEF and a decrease in the proportion of HF patients that are women.

Sex-Specific Clinical Outcomes of the PACT-HF Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Transitional care may have different effects in males and females hospitalized for heart failure. We assessed the sex-specific effects of a transitional care model on clinical outcomes following hospitalization for heart failure.

METHODS

In this stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of adults hospitalized for heart failure in Ontario, Canada, 10 hospitals were randomized to a group of transitional care services or usual care. Outcomes in this exploratory analysis were composite all-cause readmission, emergency department visit, or death at 6 months; and composite all-cause readmission or emergency department visit at 6 months. Models were adjusted for stepped-wedge design and patient age.

RESULTS

Among 2494 adults, mean (SD) age was 77.7 (12.1) years, and 1258 (50.4%) were female. The first composite outcome occurred in 371 (66.3%) versus 433 (64.1%) males (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 [95% CI, 0.86-1.26]; P=0.67) and in 326 (59.9%) versus 463 (64.8%) females (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69-1.01]; P=0.06) in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P=0.012 for sex interaction). The second composite outcome occurred in 357 (63.8%) versus 417 (61.7%) males (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.85-1.24]; P=0.76) and 314 (57.7%) versus 450 (63.0%) females (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.99]; P=0.037) in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P=0.024 for sex interaction). The sex differences were driven by a reduction in all-cause emergency department visits among females (HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.51-0.87]; P=0.003), but not males (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.85-1.43]; P=0.46), receiving the intervention (P<0.001 for sex interaction).

CONCLUSIONS

A transitional care model offered a reduction in all-cause emergency department visits among females but not males following hospitalization for heart failure. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02112227.

Gender differences in characteristics and outcomes in heart failure patients referred for end-stage treatment

Aims

Despite signals from clinical trials and mechanistic studies implying different resilience to heart failure (HF) depending on gender, the impact of gender on presentation and outcomes in patients with HF remains unclear. This study assessed the impact of gender on clinical presentation and outcomes in patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service.

Methods and results

Consecutive patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service offering advanced therapy options including left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and heart transplantation were prospectively enrolled from August 2015 until March 2018. We assessed clinical characteristics at baseline and performed survival analyses and age‐adjusted Cox regression analyses in men vs. women for all‐cause death and a combined disease‐related endpoint comprising death, heart transplantation, and LVAD implantation. Analyses were performed for the overall study population and for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Of 356 patients included, 283 (79.5%) were male. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range 50–67). Two hundred and fifty‐one (74.5%) patients had HFrEF. HF aetiology, ejection fraction, functional status measures, and most of the cardiac and non‐cardiac comorbidities did not differ between men and women. In a median follow‐up of 3.2 years, 50 patients died (45 men, 5 women), 15 patients underwent LVAD implantation, and 8 patients heart transplantation. While all‐cause death was not significantly different between both genders in the overall population [16.9 vs. 6.0%, P = 0.065, hazard ratio (HR) 2.29 (95% confidence interval 0.91–5.78), P = 0.078], in the HFrEF subgroup, a significant difference between men and women was observed [20.7% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.017, HR 3.67 (95% confidence interval 1.13–11.91), P = 0.031]. The combined endpoint was more often reached in men than in women in both the overall population [21.6% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.053, HR 2.51 (1.08–5.82), P = 0.032] and the HFrEF subgroup [27.1% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.015, HR 3.58 (1.29–9.94), P = 0.014].

Conclusions

Patients referred to a specialised tertiary HF service showed a similar clinical profile without relevant gender differences. In the mid‐term follow‐up, more male than female patients died or underwent heart transplantation and LVAD implantation. These findings call for independent validation and for further research into gender‐specific drivers of HF progression.

Impact of sex-specific target dose in chronic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

A recent study suggested that women with heart failure and heart failure reduced ejection fraction might hypothetically need lower doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers ( = renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors) and β-blockers than men to achieve the best outcome. We assessed the current medical treatment of heart failure reduced ejection fraction in men and women in a large contemporary cohort and address the hypothetical impact of changing treatment levels in women.

Methods

This analysis is part of a large contemporary quality of heart failure care project which includes 5320 (64%) men and 3003 (36%) women with heart failure reduced ejection fraction. Detailed information on heart failure therapy prescription and dosage were collected.

Results

Women less often received renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors (79% vs 83%, p &lt; 0.01), but more often β-blockers (82% vs 79%, p &lt; 0.01) than men. Differences in guideline-recommended target doses between sexes were relatively small. Implementing a hypothetical sex-specific dosing schedule (at 50% of the current recommended dose in the European Society of Cardiology guidelines in women only) would lead to significantly higher levels of women receiving appropriate dosing (β-blocker 87% vs 54%, p &lt; 0.01; renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor 96% vs 75%, p &lt; 0.01). Most interestingly, the total number of women with &gt;100% of the new hypothetical target dose would be 24% for β-blockers and 52% for renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors, which can be considered as relatively overdosed.

Conclusion

In this large contemporary heart failure registry, there were significant but relatively small differences in drug dose between men and women with heart failure reduced ejection fraction. Implementation of the hypothetical sex-specific target dosing schedule would lead to considerably more women adequately treated. In contrast, we identified a group of women who might have been relatively overdosed with increased risk of side-effects and intolerance.

Referral and access to heart function clinics: A realist review

RATIONALE, AIM, AND OBJECTIVES

Heart failure (HF) clinics are highly effective, yet not optimally utilized. A realist review was performed to identify contexts (eg, health system characteristics, clinic capacity, and siting) and underlying mechanisms (eg, referring provider knowledge of clinics and referral criteria, barriers in disadvantaged patients) that influence utilization (provider referral [ie, of all appropriate and no inappropriate patients] and access [ie, patient attends ≥1 visit]) of HF clinics.

METHODS

Following an initial scoping search and field observation in a HF clinic, we developed an initial program theory in conjunction with our expert panel, which included patient partners. Then, a literature search of seven databases was searched from inception to December 2019, including Medline; Grey literature was also searched. Studies of any design or editorials were included; studies regarding access to cardiac rehabilitation, or a single specialist for example, were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts, and then full-texts. Relevant data from included articles were used to refine the program theory.

RESULTS

A total of 29 papers from five countries (three regions) were included. There was limited information to support or refute many elements of our initial program theory (eg, referring provider knowledge/beliefs, clinic inclusion/exclusion criteria), but refinements were made (eg, specialized care provided in each clinic, lack of patient encouragement). Lack of capacity, geography, and funding arrangements were identified as contextual factors, explaining a range of mechanistic processes, including patient clinical characteristics and social determinants of health as well as clinic characteristics that help to explain inappropriate and low use of HF clinics (outcome).

CONCLUSION

Given the burden of HF and benefit of HF clinics, more research is needed to understand, and hence overcome sub-optimal use of HF clinics. In particular, an understanding from the perspective of referring providers is needed.

Cardiogenic Shock Clinical Presentation, Management, and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Acute Cardiac Care Unit of a Tertiary Hospital: Does Gender Play a Role?

Cardiogenic shock (CS), as the most severe form of heart failure, is associated with very high mortality rates despite therapeutic advances in the last decades. Gender differences in outcomes have been widely reported regarding several cardiovascular diseases. The aim of our study was to evaluate potential gender disparities in clinical presentation, management, and in-hospital outcomes of all (n = 138) patients admitted to the Acute Cardiac Care Unit of a tertiary hospital from 2013 to 2019. Information on demographic characteristics, past medical history, haemodynamic and clinical status at admission, therapeutic management, and in-hospital outcomes was retrospectively collected. Women represented 31.88% of the cohort, were significantly older than the men and had a lower proportion of smokers, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Most CSs in both groups were AMI-related. Left ventricular ejection fraction at admission was higher in women, who were less likely to receive vasopressors. No differences were observed regarding mechanical circulatory support use and in-patient outcomes, with age being the only factor associated with in-hospital mortality on multivariate analysis.

Clinical picture, management and risk stratification in patients with cardiogenic shock: does gender matter?

Background

Early recognition and risk stratification are crucial in cardiogenic shock (CS). A lower adherence to recommendations has been described in women with cardiovascular diseases. Little information exists about disparities in clinical picture, management and performance of risk stratification tools according to gender in patients with CS.

Methods

Data from the multicenter Red-Shock registry were used. All consecutive patients with CS were included. Both CardShock and IABP-SHOCK II risk scores were calculated. The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. The discriminative ability of both scores according to gender was assessed by binary logistic regression, calculating Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the corresponding area under the curve (AUC).

Results

A total of 793 patients were included, of whom 222 (28%) were female. Women were significantly older and had a lower proportion of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and prior myocardial infarction. CS was less often related to acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in women. The use of vasoactive drugs, renal replacement therapy, invasive ventilation, therapeutic hypothermia and mechanical circulatory support was similar between both groups. In-hospital mortality was 346/793 (43.6%). Mortality was not significantly different according to gender (p = 0.194).

Cardshock risk score showed a good ability for predicting in-hospital mortality both in man (AUC 0.69) and women (AUC 0.735). Likewise, the IABP-II successfully predicted in-hospital mortality in both groups (man: AUC 0.693; women: AUC 0.722).

Conclusions

No significant differences were observed regarding management and in-hospital mortality according to gender. Both the CardShock and IABP-II risk scores depicted a good ability for predicting mortality also in women with CS.