ArticlePharmacy practice
Evaluation of aldosterone antagonist utilization in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction at an academic medical center.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose optimization and utilization trends of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction in Ethiopia.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Systematic Literature Review of the Impact of Type 2 Diabetes and Heart Failure Guideline Adherence on Clinical and Economic Outcomes.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAldosterone antagonists (AA) have historically been underutilized despite evidence that they reduce morbidity, mortality, and readmission rates to the hospital when used appropriately.
objectiveWe sought to determine if AAs were being prescribed in accordance with the 2013 ACCF/AHA guidelines and if there was any benefit surrounding 30-day readmissions or 30-day mortality for patients taking AAs with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients who were discharged between October 1, 2015 and February 1, 2016 with any ICD-10 code for heart failure to assess compliance with guideline directed medical therapy. At baseline, patients were stratified by HFpEF and HFrEF. Patients were excluded if they died during the admission, discharged with hospice care, received a heart transplant or ventricular assist device, if they were miscoded or left against medical advice. Descriptive statistics, and Chi Square were used to evaluate the data.
resultsWe reviewed 601 patient charts for eligibility in our study, and determined 438 met the criteria for inclusion. Ninety-seven patients (22%) received an AA. Within the HFrEF group, only 37% of patients who were eligible per 2013 ACCF/AHA guidelines, received an AA at time of discharge. Fourteen percent of HFpEF patients were discharged on an AA. We found a trend towards decreased rates of our 30-day outcomes in patients who took AAs in both the HFpEF and HFrEF groups.
conclusionsAAs were underutilized during the timeframe we evaluated, despite the evidence for their use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.