Factors Impacting Physician Prognostic Accuracy in Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the accuracy of heart failure (HF) cardiologists and family doctors to predict mortality in outpatients with HF proved suboptimal, performing less well than models. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate patient and physician factors associated with physician accuracy. METHODS: The authors included outpatients with HF from 11 HF clinics. Family doctors and HF cardiologists estimated patient 1-year mortality. They calculated predicted mortality using the Seattle HF Model and followed patients for 1 year to record mortality (or urgent heart transplant or ventricular assist device implant as mortality-equivalent events). Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors evaluated associations among physician experience and confidence in estimates, duration of patient-physician relationship, patient-physician sex concordance, patient race, and predicted risk, with concordant results between physician and model predictions. RESULTS: Among 1,643 patients, 1-year event rate was 10% (95% CI: 8%-12%). One-half of the estimates showed discrepant results between model and physician predictions, mainly owing to physician risk overestimation. Discrepancies were more frequent with increasing patient risk from 38% in low-risk to ∼75% in high-risk patients. When making predictions on male patients, female HF cardiologists were 26% more likely to have discrepant predictions (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.94). HF cardiologist estimates in Black patients were 33% more likely to be discrepant (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-0.99). Low confidence in predictions was associated with discrepancy. Analyses restricted to high-confidence estimates showed inferior calibration to the model, with risk overestimation across risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepant physician and model predictions were more frequent in cases with perceived increased risk. Model predictions outperform physicians even when they are confident in their predictions. (Predicted Prognosis in Heart Failure [INTUITION]; NCT04009798).

Adherence to clinical practice guidelines for pulmonary valve intervention after tetralogy of Fallot repair: A nationwide cohort study.

Objectives: To determine guideline adherence pertaining to pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) referral after tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) repair. Methods: Children and adults with cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging scans and at least moderate pulmonary regurgitation were prospectively enrolled in the Comprehensive Outcomes Registry Late After TOF Repair (CORRELATE). Individuals with previous PVR were excluded. Patients were classified according to presence (+) versus absence (-) of PVR and presence (+) versus absence (-) of contemporaneous guideline satisfaction. A validated score (specific activity scale [SAS]) classified adult symptom status. Results: In total, 498 participants (57% male, mean age 32 ± 14 years) were enrolled from 14 Canadian centers (2013-2020). Mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 1.8 years. Guideline criteria for PVR were satisfied for the majority (n = 422/498, 85%), although referral for PVR occurred only in a minority (n = 167/498, 34%). At PVR referral, most were asymptomatic (75% in SAS class 1). One participant (0.6%) received PVR without meeting criteria (PVR+/indication-). The remainder (n = 75/498, 15%) did not meet criteria for and did not receive PVR (PVR-/indication-). Abnormal cardiovascular imaging was the most commonly cited indication for PVR (n = 61/123, 50%). The SAS class and ratio of right to left end-diastolic volumes were independent predictors of PVR in a multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.92-5.8, P < .0001; hazard ratio, 2.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.18-3.55, P < .0001). Conclusions: Although a majority of patients met guideline criteria for PVR, only a minority were referred for intervention. Abnormal cardiovascular imaging was the most common indication for referral. Further research will be necessary to establish the longer-term clinical impact of varying PVR referral strategies.