A discussion on how the economic burden of management differs for patients with HFpEF and HFrEF.
Jaime Murillo, MD: What is the difference in economic burden between preserved and reduced ejection fraction? I don’t think we have a good analysis about that. You’d probably find some in the literature, but from our standpoint, we still treat heart failure as a single bucket. I can tell you how much we spend in heart failure. We still have an opportunity to address what the difference is, but we know that the [the total cost is] about 50/50, essentially, between [heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction]. You could make the argument that the main cost and the drivers on the reduced ejection fraction side are related to the underlying comorbidities. That’s a major driver of cost in addition to the hospitalization, obviously.
On the preserved ejection fraction side, we have not done this type of analysis, but we certainly need to move in that direction. I would argue that those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are equally if not more expensive than reduced heart failure when you talk about cost of utilization. This is because the mortality is slightly lower on the preserved side, because they’re more likely to be readmitted, because they can decompensate more quickly, and because there’s no good alternative to treating the preserved ejection fraction as of today.
For the others, you could make the argument that once the heart is bad, it’s hard to get it back. You could at least find some reversible causes to treat, which may be doing a valve replacement, and it maybe treating their ischemic heart disease. On the preserved side, those patients are going to live longer, theoretically. They may go to the hospital more often, and they may not have the same quality of life as well. I’m not saying that the quality of life for reduced ejection fraction is any better, but in general, what I’m saying is that we may overlook the preserved ejection fraction in terms of cost. The cost associated with treating preserved ejection fractionhas not been well assessed, and it can be as high or higher than reduced ejection fraction.
The Importance of Examining and Preventing Atrial Fibrillation
August 29th 2023At this year’s American Society for Preventive Cardiology Congress on CVD Prevention, Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, delivered the Honorary Fellow Award Lecture, “The Imperative to Focus on the Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation,” as the recipient of this year’s Honorary Fellow of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology award.
Listen
Intermountain Healthcare and Story Health Partner to Optimize Rural Heart Failure Care
February 7th 2023On this episode of Managed Care Cast, we speak with Tom Stanis, CEO and cofounder of Story Health, and Phillip Wood, Intermountain Ventures program director, on how their partnership came about, how it is going so far, and the future of their collaboration.
Listen
30-Day Atorvastatin Improved Brachial Artery FMD in Patients With HFpEF, but More Research Is Needed
February 23rd 2024This study was the first of its kind to explore how taking statin medication affects blood vessel function and exercise response in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), although the cohort only included 16 patients.
Read More
There Is No Interaction Between BMI and SGLT2 Inhibitor Efficacy in HF, Review Finds
February 23rd 2024Among patients with heart failure (HF), those taking dapaglifozin or empaglifozin had a 30% odds reduction in HF hospitalization, 14% odds reduction in cardiovascular mortality, and a 10% odds reduction in all-cause mortality compared with patients taking placebo.
Read More