Skip to main content
Postgraduate Medical Journal logoLink to Postgraduate Medical Journal
. 1999 Apr;75(882):219–221. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.75.882.219

ACE inhibitors and heart failure in hospital: any difference between cardiologists and general physicians?

A Davie 1, J McMurray 1
PMCID: PMC1741195  PMID: 10715761

Abstract

Cardiologists and generalists have been reported to diverge in terms of their self-reported use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, but information on their actual use of ACE inhibitors has been lacking. In order to assess ACE inhibitor use in patients with heart failure in a teaching hospital and any differences between specialties we studied all patients in the Western Infirmary of Glasgow between 1 April and 1 October 1996 with an echocardiogram showing moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n=236). We found that most patients were on an ACE inhibitor (66%), 12% had been tried but found to be intolerant, 10% had not been tried because of a contraindication, but 12% had not been tried despite no contraindication. Of those on treatment, 58% were on a dose used in a major survival study (38% of all patients). Most patients were treated by a cardiologist (64%). Of these, more were on an ACE inhibitor (77% vs 53%, p<0.01), fewer had been tried but found intolerant (11% vs 18%), and fewer had never been tried (11% vs 29%, p<0.01), irrespective of whether they had a contraindication (5% vs 18%, p<0.01) or not (6% vs 12%). More were on a dose used in a major survival study (48% vs 31%, p<0.05). We conclude that, despite improvements over time, ACE inhibitors are still under-used, sometimes without good reason. There are also differences in the use of ACE inhibitors between cardiologists and generalists which may affect outcome, and could affect resource utilisation.


Keywords: heart failure; ACE inhibitors; audit

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (84.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Choy A. M., Darbar D., Lang C. C., Pringle T. H., McNeill G. P., Kennedy N. S., Struthers A. D. Detection of left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: comparison of clinical, echocardiographic, and neurohormonal methods. Br Heart J. 1994 Jul;72(1):16–22. doi: 10.1136/hrt.72.1.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clarke K. W., Gray D., Hampton J. R. Evidence of inadequate investigation and treatment of patients with heart failure. Br Heart J. 1994 Jun;71(6):584–587. doi: 10.1136/hrt.71.6.584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. The SOLVD Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1991 Aug 1;325(5):293–302. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199108013250501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jensen-Urstad K., Bouvier F., Höjer J., Ruiz H., Hulting J., Samad B., Thorstrand C., Jensen-Urstad M. Comparison of different echocardiographic methods with radionuclide imaging for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction during acute myocardial infarction treated by thrombolytic therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1998 Mar 1;81(5):538–544. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00964-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Willenheimer R. B., Israelsson B. A., Cline C. M., Erhardt L. R. Simplified echocardiography in the diagnosis of heart failure. Scand Cardiovasc J. 1997;31(1):9–16. doi: 10.3109/14017439709058063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Postgraduate Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES