Evaluating Pharmacist Impact on Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Heart Failure

Improving Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review of Implementation Strategies

Despite recent advances in the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), achievement of target GDMT use and up-titration to goal dosages continue to be modest. In recent years, a number of interventional approaches to improve the usage of GDMT have been published, but many are limited by single-center experiences with small sample sizes. However, strategies including the use of multidisciplinary teams, dedicated GDMT titration algorithms and clinician audits with feedback have shown promise. There remains a critical need for large, rigorous trials to assess the utility of differing interventions to improve the use and titration of GDMT in HFrEF. Here, we review existing literature in GDMT implementation for those with HFrEF and discuss future directions and considerations in the field.

Evaluating Guideline Directed Medical Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Post-coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Background: Limited evidence regarding the use of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is available. Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize prescription of HFrEF GDMT use before and after CABG. Methods: A retrospective analysis of adult patients with an ejection fraction ≤40% undergoing CABG was performed. The primary objective was to evaluate patients receiving HFrEF GDMT, defined as a heart failure beta-blocker (HFBB) and a renin-angiotensin inhibitor preoperatively and postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included dosing, percent of patients on each individual therapy, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) use, and the combination thereof. The follow up period was 1 year. Results: Thirty-eight patients met criteria for inclusion. Prior to CABG, 52.6% of patients were receiving HFrEF GDMT. The prescribing rate of HFrEF GDMT was not significantly higher at any point within 1 year postoperatively (P = .299). The rate of renin-angiotensin inhibitors, HFBB, and aldosterone antagonists use significantly increased from 13.2% preoperatively to 36.8% at 1 year after CABG (P = .022). Doses of individual therapies were not significantly different across all time points preoperatively and postoperatively. Conclusion: HFrEF GDMT use and doses of individual therapies after CABG were not maximized. Collaborative efforts between cardiac surgeons, heart failure cardiologists, and pharmacists could be used to optimize HFrEF GDMT use and dose titration.

Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review

Background

Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.

Results

We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.

Conclusions

Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.

Trial registration

The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.