Self-reported differences between cardiologists and heart failure specialists in the management of chronic heart failure

Background Heart failure (HF) is responsible for considerable mortality morbidity rates and resource utilization. Recently, several studies have reported improved outcomes when patients are managed by special HF clinics, but it is uncertain whether this improvement reflects differences in physician practices or other aspects of the operation of these clinics. Objectives This study was designed to identify differences in HF management practices between general cardiologists and cardiologists specializing in the treatment of patients with HF. Methods A survey examining diagnostic and treatment practices in patients with HF was sent to a sample of cardiologists derived from the American Medical Association Masterfile and to HF specialists who were members of the Society of Transplant Cardiologists or principal investigators in HF trials. Responses were examined in relation to guidelines issued by the Agency for Health care Policy and Research released 9 months previously, Results In general both groups practice in conformity with published guidelines. However, there were important differences between the practice patterns of general cardiologists and HF specialists. For instance, in patients being evaluated for the first time, cardiologists reported using a chest radiograph to assist in the diagnosis more than did HF specialists (47% vs 12%), whereas HF specialists were more likely to use an echocardiogram (73% vs 48%). Both groups were likely to evaluate their patients for ischemia and possible revascularization, even in patients not having angina. However, HF specialists tended to use coronary angiography as the initial diagnostic test, whereas cardiologists were more likely to use stress testing. HF specialists more often used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as pari of their initial therapy in patients with mild to moderate HF (94% vs 86%) and during maintenance therapy(91% vs 80%). Also, HF specialists were more likely than cardiologists to titrate angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to higher doses (75% vs 35%), even in the presence of renal dysfunction. Conclusion Cardiologists and HF specialists generally manage their patients in conformity with guidelines. However, in many areas, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use, HF specialists do so more aggressively. These approaches may, in part, explain the success of the HF clinic model and raise the possibility that some portion of the HF population may be more optimally managed by cardiologists with a special interest in and additional training or experience with this condition.