Physician specialty and quality of care for CHF: Different patients or different patterns of practice?

Background: Previous reports have suggested that internists employ evidence-based care for congestive heart failure (CHF) less frequently than cardiologists. Reasons for this possible difference are unclear. Methods: A retrospective review of 185 consecutive patients admitted to a Canadian tertiary care facility between April 1998 and March 1999 with a primary diagnosis of CHF and who were treated by internists (IM group) or cardiologists (CARD group) was conducted. Results: The CARD group (n=65) was younger (70 versus 76 years, P<0.001) and had larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameter by echocardiography (57 versus 51 mm, P=0.006) than the IM group (n=120). The CARD group documented ejection fraction in 90% of cases versus 54% in the IM group (P<0.05). There was no difference in angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor usage (68% versus 63%, P=0.48) or optimal ACE dosage (CARD 50% versus IM 42%, P=0.44). Multivariate predictors of ACE inhibitor usage were serum creatinine, male sex, peripheral edema and increasing serum glucose. The CARD group had higher usage of beta-blockers (69% versus 49%, P<0.009), lipid lowering medication (35% versus 17%, P<0.004) and warfarin therapy for atrial fibrillation (74% versus 28%, P<0.005). Conclusion: The data suggest that Canadian cardiologists and internists use ACE inhibitors equally and care for a relatively similar group of CHF patients. However, beta-blockade, warfarin, lipid lowering therapy and documentation of critical data occurred more frequently under cardiologist care. The possibility that there may be a gradation of adoption of newer guidelines for CHF care according to physician speciality is raised.