Current frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among physicians following the 2022 European consensus document on Frailty in Cardiology.

Aims: Aging-related cardiovascular disease and frailty burdens are anticipated to rise with global aging. In response to directions from major cardiovascular societies, we investigated frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among cardiologists as key stakeholders in this emerging paradigm a year after the European Frailty in Cardiology consensus document was published. Methods and results: We launched a prospective multinational web-based survey via social networks to broad cardiology communities representing multiple World Health Organization regions, including Western Pacific and Southeast Asia regions. Overall, 578 respondents [38.2% female; ages 35-49 years (55.2%) and 50-64 years (34.4%)] across subspecialties, including interventionists (43.3%), general cardiologists (30.6%), and heart failure specialists (HFSs) (10.9%), were surveyed. Nearly half had read the consensus document (38.9%). Non-interventionists had better perceived knowledge of frailty assessment instruments (fully or vaguely aware, 57.2% vs. 45%, adj. P = 0.0002), exercise programmes (well aware, 12.9% vs. 6.0%, adj. P = 0.001), and engaged more in multidisciplinary team care (frequently or occasionally, 52.6% vs. 41%, adj. P = 0.002) than interventionists. Heart failure specialists more often addressed pre-procedural frailty (frequently or occasionally, 43.5% vs. 28.2%, P = 0.004) and polypharmacy (frequently or occasionally, 85.5% vs. 71%, adj. P = 0.014) and had consistently better composite knowledge (39.3% vs. 21.6%, adj. P = 0.001) and practice responses (21% vs. 11.1%, adj. P = 0.018) than non-HFSs. Respondents with better knowledge responses also had better frailty practices (40.3% vs. 3.6%, adj. P < 0.001). Conclusion: Distinct response differences suggest that future strategies strengthening frailty principles should address practices peculiar to subspecialties, such as pre-procedural frailty strategies for interventionists and rehabilitation interventions for HFSs.

Wait Times for Scheduling Appointments for Prevention of Macrovascular and Microvascular Complications of Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a chronic disease that requires lifelong management and care, affecting around 422 million people worldwide and roughly 37 million in the United States. Patients newly diagnosed with diabetes must work with health care providers to formulate a management plan, including lifestyle modifications and regular office visits, to improve metabolic control, prevent or delay complications, optimize quality of life, and promote well-being. OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to investigate one component of system-wide access to timely health care for people with diabetes in New York City (NYC), namely the length of time for someone with newly diagnosed diabetes to obtain an appointment with 3 diabetes care specialists: a cardiologist, an endocrinologist, and an ophthalmologist, respectively. METHODS: We contacted the offices of 3 different kinds of specialists: cardiologists, endocrinologists, and ophthalmologists, by telephone, for this descriptive cross-sectional study, to determine the number of days required to schedule an appointment for a new patient with diabetes. The sampling frame included all specialists affiliated with any private or public hospital in NYC. The number of days to obtain an appointment with each specialist was documented, along with "time on hold" when attempting to schedule an appointment and the presence of online booking capabilities. RESULTS: Of the 1639 unique physicians affiliated with (private and public) hospitals in the 3 subspecialties, 1032 (cardiologists, endocrinologists, and ophthalmologists) were in active practice and did not require a referral. The mean wait time for scheduling an appointment was 36 (SD 36.4; IQR 12-51.5) days for cardiologists; 82 (SD 47; IQR 56-101) days for endocrinologists; and 50.4 (SD 56; IQR 10-72) days for ophthalmologists. The median wait time was 27 days for cardiologists, 72 days for endocrinologists, and 30 days for ophthalmologists. The mean time on hold while attempting to schedule an appointment with these specialists was 2.6 (SD 5.5) minutes for cardiologists, 5.4 (SD 4.3) minutes for endocrinologists, and 3.2 (SD 4.8) minutes for ophthalmologists, respectively. Over 46% (158/341) of cardiologists enabled patients to schedule an appointment on the web, and over 55% (128/228) of endocrinologists enabled patients to schedule an appointment on the web. In contrast, only approximately 25% (117/463) of ophthalmologists offered web-based appointment scheduling options. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate considerable variation in wait times between and within the 3 specialties examined for a new patient in NYC. Given the paucity of research on wait times for newly diagnosed people with diabetes to obtain an appointment with different specialists, this study provides preliminary estimates that can serve as an initial reference. Additional research is needed to document the extent to which wait times are associated with complications and the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of people served by different providers.

Physicians approach shared decision-making for sports eligibility decisions heterogeneously.

Background: There is limited data regarding how clinicians operationalize shared decision-making (SDM) with athletes with cardiovascular diagnoses. This study was designed to explore sports cardiologists' conceptions of SDM and approaches to sports eligibility decisions. Methods: 20 sports cardiologists were interviewed by telephone or video conference from October 2022 to May 2023. Qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted with the transcripts. Results: All participants endorsed SDM for eligibility decisions, however, SDM was defined and operationalized heterogeneously. Only 6 participants specifically referenced eliciting patient preferences during SDM. Participants described variable roles for the physician in SDM and variable views on athletes' understanding, perception, and tolerance of risk. Participants thresholds for prohibitive annual risk of sudden cardiac death ranged from <1 % to >10 %. Conclusions: These findings reinforce the general acceptance of SDM for sports eligibility decisions and highlight the need to better understand this process and identify the most effective approach for operationalization.

Cardiologists' knowledge and perceptions of the seasonal influenza immunisation.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal influenza immunisation reduces cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, but 50% do not receive routine immunisation. The perceptions and current role of cardiologists in recommending and prescribing influenza immunisation has not been well described. METHODS: We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews of 10 cardiologists were performed to identify themes for quantitative evaluation. 63 cardiologists undertook quantitative evaluation in an online survey. The interviews and surveys addressed (a) attitudes and behaviours regarding influenza immunisation and (b) preventative care in cardiology. RESULTS: One quarter (25.4%, n = 16) of cardiologists recommended influenza immunisation to all patients. Less than half (49.2%, n = 31) recommended influenza immunisation to secondary prevention patients. Almost 1/3 of respondents (31.7%, n = 20) were uncertain or unaware of the guidelines regarding influenza immunisation and patients with cardiac disease. Most cardiologists believed that general practitioners were responsible for ensuring patients received influenza immunisation (76.2%, n = 48). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, influenza immunisation is not widely recommended by cardiologists. Further clinician education is needed to address the knowledge gaps which prevent recommendation and uptake of this guideline directed treatment.

Association of Neighborhood-Level Marginalization With Health Care Use and Clinical Outcomes Following Hospital Discharge in Patients Who Underwent Coronary Catheterization for Acute Myocardial Infarction in a Single-Payer Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Canadian data suggest that patients of lower socioeconomic status with acute myocardial infarction receive less beneficial therapy and have worse clinical outcomes, raising questions regarding care disparities even in universal health care systems. We assessed the contemporary association of marginalization with clinical outcomes and health services use. METHODS: Using clinical and administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based study of patients aged ≥65 years hospitalized for their first acute myocardial infarction between April 1, 2010 and March 1, 2019. Patients receiving cardiac catheterization and surviving 7 days postdischarge were included. Our primary exposure was neighborhood-level marginalization, a multidimensional socioeconomic status metric. Neighborhoods were categorized by quintile from Q1 (least marginalized) to Q5 (most marginalized). Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality. A proportional hazards regression model with a robust variance estimator was used to quantify the association of marginalization with outcomes, adjusting for risk factors, comorbidities, disease severity, and regional cardiologist supply. RESULTS: Among 53 841 patients (median age, 75 years; 39.1% female) from 20 640 neighborhoods, crude 1- and 3-year mortality rates were 7.7% and 17.2%, respectively. Patients in Q5 had no significant difference in 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08 [95% CI, 0.95-1.22]), but greater mortality over 3 years (HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.03-1.22]) compared with Q1. Over 1 year, we observed differences between Q1 and Q5 in visits to primary care physicians (Q1, 96.7%; Q5, 93.7%) and cardiologists (Q1, 82.6%; Q5, 72.6%), as well as diagnostic testing. There were no differences in secondary prevention medications dispensed or medication adherence at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with acute myocardial infarction who survived to hospital discharge, those residing in the most marginalized neighborhoods had a greater long-term risk of mortality, less specialist care, and fewer diagnostic tests. Yet, there were no differences across socioeconomic status in prescription medication use and adherence.

Pregnancy outcomes of women presenting with stage 1 hypertension during the first prenatal clinic visit before 20 gestational weeks.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pregnancy outcomes of women who had 2017 American College of Cardiologists stage 1 hypertension during the first prenatal clinic visit before 20 gestational weeks in a tertiary hospital in South Africa. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study involving the review of medical records of 127 participants with stage 1 hypertension and 128 control with blood pressure (BP) less than stage 1 hypertension before 20 weeks' gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was progression to stage 2 hypertension (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg). Secondary outcome measures were a combination of maternal variables (postpartum BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg, use of antihypertensives within 24 h postpartum, pulmonary oedema, and maternal death within 24 h postpartum) and perinatal variables (fetal growth restriction, gestational age at delivery, fetal compromise, abruptio placenta, birth weight, Apgar score in 1 and 5 min). RESULTS: The study and control arms were similar in age, parity, and comorbidities (p > 0.05). The following maternal outcomes were worse (p < 0.001) in the study compared to control arm: progression to stage 2 hypertension (46 % vs 1.6 %), postpartum systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg (33.9 % vs 1.6 %), postpartum diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg (22.1 % vs 1.6 %) and use of antihypertensives within 24 h postpartum (27.6 % vs 0.8 %). Other outcome measures did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Stage 1 hypertension occurring before 20 weeks' gestation increases the risk of progression to stage 2 hypertension in pregnancy and the use of antihypertensive drug therapy within 24 h postpartum.

Assessment of real-time electrocardiogram effects on interpretation quality by emergency physicians.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) is one of the most commonly performed examinations in emergency medicine. The literature suggests that one-third of ECG interpretations contain errors and can lead to clinical adverse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of real-time ECG interpretation by senior emergency physicians compared to cardiologists and an ECG expert. METHODS: This was a prospective study in two university emergency departments and one emergency medical service. All ECGs were performed and interpreted over five weeks by a senior emergency physician (EP) and then by a cardiologist using the same questionnaire. In case of mismatch between EP and the cardiologist our expert had the final word. The ratio of agreement between both interpretations and the kappa (k) coefficient characterizing the identification of major abnormalities defined the reading ability of the emergency physicians. RESULTS: A total of 905 ECGs were analyzed, of which 705 (78%) resulted in a similar interpretation between emergency physicians and cardiologists/expert. However, the interpretations of emergency physicians and cardiologists for the identification of major abnormalities coincided in only 66% (k: 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-0.65); P-value = 1.64e-92). ECGs were correctly classified by emergency physicians according to their emergency level in 82% of cases (k: 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70-0.77); P-value ≈ 0). Emergency physicians correctly recognized normal ECGs (sensitivity = 0.91). CONCLUSION: Our study suggested gaps in the identification of major abnormalities among emergency physicians. The initial and ongoing training of emergency physicians in ECG reading deserves to be improved.

'We are somehow fixated on this being a diabetes drug': a qualitative study exploring the views of cardiologists and nephrologists about sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor initiation.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are now indicated for heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD), irrespective of the presence of diabetes. Hence, cardiologists and nephrologists have an important role in initiating these drugs. AIMS: To explore cardiologists' and nephrologists' perspectives regarding initiating SGLT2i and their safety monitoring practices when initiating SGLT2i. METHODS: Purposive and snowball approaches were used to recruit participants working in diverse areas in New South Wales, Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 cardiologists and 12 nephrologists. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Emergent themes were identified from transcripts. An iterative general inductive approach was used for data analysis. RESULTS: There was a reluctance amongst most non-heart-failure subspecialist cardiologists to initiate SGLT2i. Reasons included the perception of SGLT2i as diabetes drugs, concern about side effects, lack of experience and issues with follow-up. In contrast, nephrologists reported feeling confident to initiate SGLT2i. Nephrologists varied in their opinions about the severity of CKD at which SGLT2i initiation was reasonable and monitoring of renal function following initiation. Government subsidisation was an important factor in the decision to prescribe SGLT2i to people without diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the complex transition from the perception of SGLT2i as diabetes drugs to cardiometabolic and reno-protective agents. Interdisciplinary collaboration may enable greater confidence amongst specialists to initiate SGLT2i, including in patients with CKD. Additionally, there is a need for clear and detailed guidance about SGLT2i prescription in patients with renal dysfunction and renal function monitoring following SGLT2i initiation.

A global survey of health care workers' awareness of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: The AwareNASH survey.

BACKGROUND: The estimated global prevalence and burden of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and its advanced stage, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), is increasing. Yet, NAFLD remains largely underdiagnosed. In addition to hepatic morbidity and mortality, NAFLD is associated with increased cardiovascular complications, warranting a multidisciplinary approach. Despite its rapidly increasing prevalence, knowledge of NAFLD among healthcare workers is limited, especially with specialists outside the field of hepatology and gastroenterology. OBJECTIVES: To investigate knowledge, practice and opinions/attitudes of healthcare workers towards diagnosis and management of NAFLD/NASH. METHODS: The survey was designed in collaboration with a multidisciplinary scientific committee established especially for this study. The survey was disseminated to healthcare workers from seven different disciplines through four collaborating societies, social media and at a cardiology-themed conference from February to June 2022. Median and interquartile range were mentioned for numeric responses and proportions for categorical responses or responses on a Likert scale. Likert scale responses were treated as ordinal data and analysed with the appropriate tests. RESULTS: The full dataset included 613 respondents from 88 different countries (including 488 physicians). 64% of the surveyed physicians underestimated the prevalence of NAFLD. General practitioners and cardiologists underestimated the prevalence most often (74% and 77%, respectively). Compared to the other disciplines, cardiologists were least familiar with the symptoms and diagnostic criteria and felt least confident in diagnosing and managing NAFLD. Overall, 65% of physicians reported regularly using evidence-based guidelines for managing NAFLD, yet 72% reported challenges in providing lifestyle recommendations. A lack of awareness was the most common reported reason for the lack of screening for NAFLD (68% respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing burden of NAFLD, there is a significant gap in awareness, knowledge, and management among physicians treating patients with cardiometabolic comorbidities, particularly cardiologists. Hepatologists and gastroenterologists could play a role in educating their fellow physicians.

Lead Cap Use in Interventional Cardiology: Time to Protect Our Head in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory?

Background: Radiation exposure is an occupational hazard for interventional cardiologists and cardiac catheterisation laboratory staff that can manifest with serious long-term health consequences. Personal protective equipment, including lead jackets and glasses, is common, but the use of radiation protective lead caps is inconsistent. Methods: A systematic review qualitative assessment of five observational studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines protocol was performed. Results: It was concluded that lead caps significantly reduce radiation exposure to the head, even when a ceiling-mounted lead shield was present. Conclusion: Although newer protective systems are being studied and introduced, tools, such as lead caps, need to be strongly considered and employed in the catheterisation laboratory as mainstay personal protective equipment.

Factors influencing adherence to clinical practice guidelines in patients with suspected chronic coronary syndrome: a qualitative interview study in the ambulatory care sector in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is a potentially progressive clinical presentation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are available for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Embedded in the "ENLIGHT-KHK" healthcare project, a qualitative study was conducted to identify factors that influence guideline adherence from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists (CA) in the ambulatory care sector in Germany. METHODS: GPs and CAs were surveyed via telephone using an interview guide. The respondents were first asked about their individual approach to caring for patients with suspected CCS. Subsequently, the accordance of their approach with guideline recommendations was addressed. Finally, potential measures for assisting with guideline adherence were discussed. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a qualitative content analysis in accordance with Kuckartz and Rädiker. Factors influencing adherence to CPGs were categorised by assessing whether they (i) inhibited or facilitated guideline adherence, (ii) played a role in patients at risk of CCS or with suspected or known CCS, (iii) were mentioned in implicit or explicit thematic reference to CPGs, and (iv) were declared a practical problem. RESULTS: Based on interviews with ten GPs and five CAs, 35 potential influencing factors were identified. These emerged at four levels: patients, healthcare providers, CPGs, and the healthcare system. The most commonly cited barrier to guideline adherence among the respondents was structural aspects at the system level, including reachability of providers and services, waiting times, reimbursement through statutory health insurance (SHI) providers, and contract offers. There was a strong emphasis on interdependencies between factors acting at different levels. For instance, poor reachability of providers and services at the system level may result in inexpedience of guideline recommendations at the CPG level. Likewise, poor reachability of providers and services at the system level may be aggravated or alleviated by factors such as diagnostic preferences at the patient level or collaborations at the provider level. CONCLUSIONS: To assist with adherence to CPGs regarding CCS, promoting measures may be needed that account for interdependencies between barriers and facilitators at various healthcare levels. Respective measures should consider medically justified deviations from guideline recommendations in individual cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00015638; Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1227-8055.

Healthcare Providers' Experience Using Telehealth During the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Predominantly Rural Patient Base: An Online Survey.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 led to the rapid adoption of telemedicine with a significant spike in the literature concerning the patients' perspective of its use. The providers' perspective has been less well studied. Med Center Health is a healthcare network that provides services in 10 southern Kentucky counties that are home to over 300,000 people with approximately 61% of this population living in areas defined as rural. The goal of this article was to compare the experience of providers serving a predominantly rural population to their patients and compare the experience of providers between each other based on the obtained demographic data. METHODS: An online electronic survey was developed and sent out from July 13th, 2020 to July 27th, 2020 for completion to the 176 physicians of the Med Center Health Physician group. The survey gathered basic demographic information, telemedicine use during COVID-19, and perceptions of telemedicine use during and the role of telemedicine after COVID-19. Perceptions of telemedicine were gauged using Likert and Likert-style questions. Cardiology provider responses were compared to the previously published patient responses. Differences between providers were also analyzed based on the demographic data obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-eight providers responded to the survey with nine providers indicating that they did not use telemedicine during COVID-19. Significant differences between eight cardiologists' and cardiology patients' perceptions of telemedicine visits were seen for internet connectivity (p < 0.001), privacy (p = 0.01), and clinical exam (p < 0.001) with cardiologists ranking these as more concerning or worse in all instances. These results continued when comparing perceptions of patients' in-person experience and providers' perception of telemedicine visits with significant differences observed with clinical exam (p < 0.001), communication (p = 0.048), and overall experience (p = 0.02). No statistically significant differences were seen between cardiologists and other providers. Providers who indicated more than 10 years of practice rated their experience with telemedicine significantly lower in the domains of effective communication (p = 0.004), level of care provided (p = 0.02), thoroughness of clinical exam (p = 0.047), patient comfort discussing concerns (p = 0.04), and overall experience (p = 0.048). Despite this, only three providers indicated that they would not use telemedicine post-pandemic with a majority indicating that they would feel comfortable using telemedicine for follow-up visits and medication refill visits. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to our knowledge to compare patient and provider satisfaction concerning telemedicine across a wide array of topics using Likert-style and Likert scale questions and the first to investigate the perception of providers who serve a predominantly rural patient base during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar results have been found in a few previous studies concerning telemedicine being less favorably rated by more experienced providers. Further studies need to be conducted to identify and correct the barriers that exist for providers and the adoption of telemedicine.

[Patients insuffisants cardiaques chroniques rarement adressés à un cardiologue libéral ou régulièrement suivis par un médecin généraliste et un cardiologue libéral : étude descriptive transversale (MIRROR-HF)]. / Patients with chronic heart failure infrequently referred to an officed-based cardiologist or regularly followed by a general practitioner and an officed-based cardiologist : a descriptive, cross-sectional study (MIRROR-HF).

BACKGROUND: French health authorities recommend implementing a strong coordination between general practitioners and office-based cardiologists for the care and management of patients with chronic heart failure. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients with chronic heart failure who were infrequently referred to an office-based cardiologist (either first time referral or last visit more than 12 months before study inclusion) by a general practitioner or other healthcare professional versus those who were regularly followed by a general practitioner and an office-based cardiologist (at least one visit to an office-based cardiologist in the last 12 months). METHODS: This was a non-interventional, cross-sectional study, conducted among office-based cardiologists in France during a single study visit. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: 1460 patients were included in the study with 37.1% in the group infrequently referred to an office-based cardiologist and 62.9% in the regularly followed group. The patients who were infrequently referred to an office-based cardiologist had relatively less heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (29.2% versus 36.6%), less prior chronic heart failure hospitalization (15.9% versus 31.4%), and less atrial fibrillation and ischemic heart failure as comorbidities (40.2% versus 50.5% and 39.3% versus 50.1%, respectively) than patients who were regularly followed by an office-based cardiologist and a general practitioner. They also received less clinical exams (25.5% versus 97.4%) and pharmacological (89.3% versus 98.4%) and non-pharmacological (17.3% versus 27.1%) heart failure treatments before the study visit. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggested that patients regularly followed by a general practitioner and an office-based cardiologist had globally a more severe chronic heart failure and a better medical monitoring and follow-up than other patients.

Few geriatric heart failure patients investigated according to clinical guidelines: a retrospective review of patient records.

BACKGROUND: Research on heart failure (HF) has often focused on younger patients. The aim of this study was to analyze extent of investigation and treatment among older patients prior to referral to inpatient geriatric care for worsening of HF. METHODS: Data on etiology, ejection fraction (EF) by echocardiography (ECHO), level of functioning according to New York Heart Association (NYHA), analysis of N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-Pro-BNP), ongoing treatment, adherence to guidelines, and information from previous caregiver were collected from patient records prior to admission from a sample of 134 patients. RESULTS: Few patients had been examined by a cardiologist (14%) during the year prior to referral. EF assessment had been performed in 78% (n = 105). The patients were categorized as having HF with reduced (HFrEF 28%), preserved (HFpEF 53%) or mid-range (HFmrEF 19%) EF. HFpEF patients had older EF assessments (mean 517 days) than those with HFrEF (385 days). In 61% (n = 82) at least one assessment with NT-Pro-BNP had been performed, being older among patients with HFpEF (290 days vs 16 days). There was a strong positive correlation (OR 4.9, p = 0.001) between having recent assessments of EF and NT-Pro-BNP (n = 30, 21%) and being presented with etiology in the referral, adjusted for EF, age, sex, and comorbidity. Among the HFrEF patients, 78% were treated with ACEI/ARB and BB according to ESC guidelines but reaching only half of target doses. In the HFpEF group the corresponding treatment was 46%. Among patients with EF ≤ 35% only 14% were treated with mineral receptor antagonists, ie low adherence to guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: HF care in this population of older individuals showed deficiencies. There was little contact with cardiologists, lack of information of etiology in referrals and low adherence to treatment guidelines. Improving adherence to HF guidelines regarding investigation and treatment for HF in older people is therefore urgent and calls for more collaboration between specialists in cardiology and geriatric medicine.