Clinical inertia in the treatment of heart failure: a major issue to tackle.

Despite an enormous improvement in heart failure management during the last decades, the hospitalization and mortality rate of heart failure patients still remain very high. Clinical inertia, defined as the lack of treatment intensification in a patient not at evidence-based goals for care, is an important underlying cause. Clinical inertia is extensively described in hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus, but increasingly recognized in heart failure as well. Given the well-established guidelines for the management of heart failure, these are still not being reflected in clinical practice. While the absolute majority of patients were treated by guideline-directed heart failure drugs, only a small percentage of these patients reached the correct guideline-recommended target dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors. This considerable under-treatment leads to a large number of avoidable hospitalizations and deaths. This review discusses clinical inertia in heart failure and explains its major contributing factors (i.e., physician, patient, and system) and touches upon some recommendations to prevent clinical inertia and ameliorate heart failure treatment.

Diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of heart failure patients by general practitioners: A Delphi consensus statement.

AIMS: Creation of an algorithm that includes the most important parameters (history, clinical parameters, and anamnesis) that can be linked to heart failure, helping general practitioners in recognizing heart failure in an early stage and in a better follow-up of the patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The algorithm was created using a consensus-based Delphi panel technique with fifteen general practitioners and seven cardiologists from Belgium. The method comprises three iterations with general statements on diagnosis, referral and treatment, and follow-up. Consensus was obtained for the majority of statements related to diagnosis, referral, and follow-up, whereas a lack of consensus was seen for treatment statements. Based on the statements with good and perfect consensus, an algorithm for general practitioners was assembled, helping them in diagnoses and follow-up of heart failure patients. The diagnosis should be based on three essential pillars, i.e. medical history, anamnesis and clinical examination. In case of suspected heart failure, blood analysis, including the measurement of NT-proBNP levels, can already be performed by the general practitioner followed by referral to the cardiologist who is then responsible for proper diagnosis and initiation of treatment. Afterwards, a multidisciplinary health care process between the cardiologist and the general practitioner is crucial with an important role for the general practitioner who has a key role in the up-titration of heart failure medication, down-titration of the dose of diuretics and to assure drug compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the consensus levels of statements in a Delphi panel setting, an algorithm is created to help general practitioners in the diagnosis and follow-up of heart failure patients.