Temporal Trends and Hospital Variation in Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Use in Veterans Discharged With Heart Failure.

Dev S, Lacy ME, Masoudi FA, Wu WC. Temporal Trends and Hospital Variation in Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonist Use in Veterans Discharged With Heart Failure. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2015 Dec 23; 4(12).

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• RRP 09-172 – Variations in Quality of care & Outcomes for Veterans with Heart failure
• RRP 12-456 – Pre-Implementation Study of Spironolactone Appropriateness and Safety Monitoring

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Despite concerns about mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapies (MRAs) underuse and misuse in patients with heart failure, temporal and institutional variations of MRA prescription have not been reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied a national sample of veterans hospitalized for heart failure between 2003 and 2009 and left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%. We identified ideal and non-ideal candidates for MRA therapy based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. We measured temporal trends and hospital variation of MRA prescriptions within 90 days after discharge. We determined the median odds ratio (MOR), a measure of the relative odds of an MRA prescription for 2 individuals with similar characteristics discharged at 2 randomly selected hospitals. From 37 126 patients (n = 131 hospitals), 9355 were ideal-MRA candidates, and 4056 were non-ideal candidates. Among ideal candidates, 36% received an MRA, but there was a decline in use (41% in 2003 to 31% in 2009, P < 0.001). Of non-ideal candidates, 27% received an MRA with a decline in use (34% in 2003 to 22% in 2009, P < 0.001). Hospital MRA prescription ranged from 0% to 71% for ideal candidates and 0% to 100% for non-ideal candidates. The median odds ratios of MRA prescription for ideal and non-ideal candidates were 1.44 and 1.36, respectively; a median odds ratio > 1.2 indicates significant practice-level variation. CONCLUSIONS: There was decreasing MRA use between 2003 and 2009 with wide institutional variation in MRA prescription, which suggests opportunities for improvement to stimulate MRA use in ideal candidates while further reducing use in those with contraindications.