Heart Failure and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: Editorials

JGIM
EDITORIALS
Heart Failure and AngiotensinConverting Enzyme

Inhibitors
Is There a Need for Specialty Care?
ongestive heart failure (CHF) causes significant morbidity and mortality in the United States. As of 1995,
4.7 million people in this country had been diagnosed with
CHF. The 6-year mortality rate reaches 80% in men and
65% in women.1 Over the last 10 years, advances in our understanding of heart failure have led to new therapeutic developments. One such therapy is the angiotensinconverting
enzyme (ACE) inhibitor.
In the late 1980s to early 1990s several pivotal, randomized controlled trials showed the benefit of such therapy in CHF. One of the early trials was the SOLVD trial,
which showed that enalapril, added to conventional therapy, significantly reduced mortality and hospitalizations
in patients with decreased left ventricular function.2 At
the same time, the SOLVD investigators evaluated the effect of enalapril on mortality and morbidity in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular function, and
demonstrated an 8% reduction in mortality and a 37% reduction in the development of heart failure.3 Other studies have confirmed the substantial benefit of using ACE
inhibitors in other patient groups, including those with
CHF after myocardial infarction.4
Despite the overwhelming evidence that ACE inhibitors reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with left
ventricular dysfunction and CHF, studies indicate that this
family of drugs is being underutilized.5,6 Furthermore, even
when used, it is at lower doses than those shown to be effective in randomized trials. However, little is known about
why the drug is underused and possibly underdosed and
whether physician subspecialty affects the use of ACE inhibitors.
In this issue, Chin et al. provide important information
on the underutilization of ACE inhibitors and the possible
effects of physicians speciality on the use of these agents.
In their Brief Report, the authors performed a retrospective
analysis of 214 outpatients with decreased systolic function treated at an urban medical center.7 They compared
patients under the care of cardiologists versus generalist
physicians versus a combination of both. Regardless of
specialty, approximately 75% of physicians patients were
taking an ACE inhibitor. This percentage is higher than
previous reports, which indicated that ACE inhibitors are
used in only 3040% of patients with heart failure.8 However, only 60% were taking doses that were proven to be efficacious in randomized trials.7
The major limitation of this retrospective study is that

the indications for therapy were not measured. The generalist physicians patients were more likely to have hypertension than the cardiologists patients. This difference
might indicate that the ACE inhibitors were being used for
different indications: hypertension for generalists patients
and CHF for cardiologists patients. It is difficult, therefore, to conclude that generalist physicians use ACE inhibitors to treat heart failure the same way as cardiologists. Although patients of generalists tended to be on
higher doses of ACE inhibitors, this may also indicate that
generalists were using higher doses to treat higher blood
pressure (as indicated by their patients higher blood pressures) and that cardiologists were using lower doses to
treat CHF in patients who were unable to tolerate adequate dosing.
In contrast to the results of this study, the authors
first study demonstrated differences in knowledge about
the indications for ACE inhibitors among specialists.9 This
national survey of cardiologists, internists, and family
practitioners used four clinical vignettes of patients with
left ventricular dysfunction to assess the use of ACE inhibitors. The four vignettes reflected the categories of patients
that have been shown in randomized clinical trials to benefit from ACE inhibitors. Cardiologists were statistically
more likely to choose ACE inhibitors in these vignettes
than other specialists (albeit with similar preferences for
patients with chronic heart failure). Interestingly, cardiologists rated original research and review articles as more
important in making decisions than the other specialists.
They were also more likely to titrate the ACE inhibitor to a
specific dose while the generalists aimed for relief of symptoms and signs of CHF.
The conclusions drawn from this second study are
limited by the low response rate (58%), which could both
introduce bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. The direction of any possible biases are difficult to
predict. Even with similar response rates between specialty groups, there may have been differences in the way
cardiologists and other physicians responded. The overall
low response rate also limits generalizability. For example,
because nonresponders were less likely to be board certified, responders may represent a group with more knowledge of recent studies, thus overestimating use in this
study.
581
582
JGIM
Scheiner and Kimmel, Editorial
The two studies address similar questions, but arrive

at different conclusions.7,9 Although the survey study
suggests that cardiologists use more ACE inhibitors and
at more adequate doses, it is limited by nonresponse and
by the artificiality of this type of survey research. The second study, based on real world treatment, demonstrates
no differences but is limited by a lack of information
about the indication for the ACE inhibitor, possibly the
inability to detect clinically meaningful differences, and
the limited generalizability of a single center study. Overall, the studies suggest that cardiologists may be more
likely to be using ACE inhibitors as empiric therapy for
CHF and titrating the dose appropriately, and generalist
physicians may be more likely to be using ACE inhibitors
to treat symptoms and high blood pressure.
Where do we go from here? The results suggest that
the use of ACE inhibitor is increasing, at least at one institution.7 However, underdosing remains a problem. A recent review suggests that physicians underdose because
they believe that high and low doses are equivalent, they
base the dose on symptoms, and they limit the dose below
those used in randomized trials to avoid side effects.8 A
study is currently underway to assess the issue of proper
dosing of ACE inhibitors, ATLAS (Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril and Survival). Until more is known,
physicians should aim to prescribe these agents in doses
that were studied and proven effective in randomized clinical trials.
It is still difficult to determine whether or not there is a
difference among specialties regarding the use of ACE inhibitors. It is certainly possible that cardiologists are using
these agents more appropriately in patients with CHF.
Should cardiologists be the sole providers for patients with
CHF? The results of the survey showed that only 0.5% of
family practitioners and 4% of internists cared for as many
cardiac patients as cardiologists.9 If the generalist sees
substantially fewer cardiac patients, is it fair to expect
them to be up to date on all aspects of cardiac care? In the
age of managed care these questions may already be answered, whether optimal or not. As a result, it is imperative
that conclusive information be disseminated to all physi-
cians. Based on the information in these studies, this dissemination may best be done from colleague to colleague
or through continuing medical education programs. If further research suggests that this dissemination is not effective, then referral of patients with CHF to a cardiologist
would be clinically beneficial for these patients.MARC A.
SCHEINER, MD, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, and STEPHEN E. KIMMEL, MD, MS, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania
School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
REFERENCES
1. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task
Force on Practice Guidelines. Guidelines for the evaluation and
management of heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:137698.
2. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients
with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and congestive heart
failure. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:293302.
3. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the
development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced
left ventricular ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:68691.
4. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moye LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular
enlargement trial. The SAVE Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992;
327:66977.
5. Young JB, Weiner DH, Yusuf S, et al. Patterns of medication use in
patients with heart failure: a report from the registry of studies of left
ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD). South Med J. 1995;88:51423.
6. Bourassa MG, Gurne O, Bangdiwala SI, et al. Natural history and
patterns of current practice in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol.
1993;22:149A.
7. Chin MH, Wang JC, Zhang JX, Lang RM. Utilization and dosing of
angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors for heart failure: effect of
physician specialty and patient characteristics. J Gen Intern Med.
1997;12:5636.
8. Packer M. Do angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors prolong life
in patients with heart failure treated in clinical practice? J Am Coll
Cardiol. 1996;28:13237.
9. Chin MH, Friedmann PD, Cassel CK, Lang RM. Differences in generalist and specialist knowledge and use of angiotensin converting
enzyme inhibitors for congestive heart failure. J Gen Intern Med.
1997;12:52330.

Heart Failure and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: Editorials

Uploaded by

Heart Failure and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: Editorials

Uploaded by

JGIM

Heart Failure and AngiotensinConverting Enzyme

The major limitation of this retrospective study is that

Scheiner and Kimmel, Editorial

The two studies address similar questions, but arrive

You might also like