Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Ahead of Print.
Background:Despite atrial fibrillation guideline recommendations, many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) continue to receive IV diltiazem for acute rate control.Objective:Our institution recently implemented a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-based tool that recommends against the use of diltiazem in patients with an EF ≤ 40%. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of adherence to the aforementioned CDSS-based tool.Methods:This multi-hospital, retrospective study assessed patients who triggered the CDSS alert and compared those who did and did not discontinue diltiazem. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinical deterioration. The primary endpoint was compared utilizing a Fisher’s Exact Test, and a multivariate logistic regression model was developed to confirm the results of the primary analysis.Results:A total of 246 patients were included in this study with 146 patients in the nonadherent group (received diltiazem) and 100 patients in the adherent group (did not receive diltiazem). There was a higher proportion of patients experiencing clinical deterioration in the alert nonadherence group (33% vs 21%, P = 0.044), including increased utilization of inotropes and vasopressors, and higher rate of transfer to ICU.Conclusion and Relevance:In patients with heart failure with reduced EF, diltiazem use after nonadherence to a CDSS alert resulted in an increased risk of clinical deterioration. This study highlights the need for improved provider adherence to diltiazem clinical decision support systems.
Background:Despite atrial fibrillation guideline recommendations, many patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (EF) continue to receive IV diltiazem for acute rate control.Objective:Our institution recently implemented a clinical decision support system (CDSS)-based tool that recommends against the use of diltiazem in patients with an EF ≤ 40%. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes of adherence to the aforementioned CDSS-based tool.Methods:This multi-hospital, retrospective study assessed patients who triggered the CDSS alert and compared those who did and did not discontinue diltiazem. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinical deterioration. The primary endpoint was compared utilizing a Fisher’s Exact Test, and a multivariate logistic regression model was developed to confirm the results of the primary analysis.Results:A total of 246 patients were included in this study with 146 patients in the nonadherent group (received diltiazem) and 100 patients in the adherent group (did not receive diltiazem). There was a higher proportion of patients experiencing clinical deterioration in the alert nonadherence group (33% vs 21%, P = 0.044), including increased utilization of inotropes and vasopressors, and higher rate of transfer to ICU.Conclusion and Relevance:In patients with heart failure with reduced EF, diltiazem use after nonadherence to a CDSS alert resulted in an increased risk of clinical deterioration. This study highlights the need for improved provider adherence to diltiazem clinical decision support systems.
