The prognostic impact of specialist cardiology input in patients admitted for heart failure and normal ejection fraction

Abstract

AbstractAimsSpecialist cardiology care is associated with a prognostic benefit in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) admitted with decompensated HF. However, up to one third of patients admitted with HF and normal ejection fraction (HFnEF) do not receive specialist cardiology input. Whether this has prognostic implications is unknown.Methods and resultsData on patients hospitalized with HFnEF from two tertiary centres were analysed. The primary outcome measure was all‐cause mortality during follow‐up. The secondary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. A total of 1413 patients were included in the study. Of these, 23% (n = 322) did not receive in‐hospital specialist cardiology input. Patients seen by a cardiologist were less likely to have hypertension (73% vs. 79%, P = 0.03) and respiratory co‐morbidities (25% vs. 31%, P = 0.02) compared with those who did not receive specialist input. Similarly, clinical presentation was more severe for those who received specialist input (New York Heart Association III/IV 83% vs. 75% respectively, P = 0.003; moderate‐to‐severe peripheral oedema 65% vs. 54%, P < 0.001). Medical management was similar, except for a higher use of diuretics (90% vs. 86%, P = 0.04) and a longer length of stay for patients who received specialist input (9 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). Long‐term outcomes were comparable between patients who received specialist input and those who did not. However, specialist input was independently associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (hazard ratio 0.19, confidence interval 0.09–0.43, P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn‐hospital cardiology specialist input has no long‐term prognostic advantage in patients with HFnEF but is independently associated with reduced in‐hospital mortality.