Skip to main content
Download PDF

Evolution of economic burden of heart failure by ejection fraction in newly diagnosed patients in Spain

BMC Health Services Research volume 23, Article number: 1340 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs, in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure (HF) according to ejection fraction (EF) in Spain.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study that analyzed anonymized, integrated and computerised medical records in Spain. Patients with ≥ 1 new HF diagnosis between January 2013 and September 2019 were included and followed-up during a 4-year period. Rates per 100 person-years of HCRU and costs were estimated.

Results

Nineteen thousand nine hundred sixty-one patients were included, of whom 43.5%, 26.3%, 5.1% and 25.1% had HF with reduced, preserved, mildly reduced and unknown EF, respectively. From year 1 to 4, HF rates of outpatient visits decreased from 1149.5 (95% CI 1140.8–1159.3) to 765.5 (95% CI 745.9–784.5) and hospitalizations from 61.7 (95% CI 60.9–62.7) to 15.7(14.7–16.7) per 100 person-years. The majority of HF-related healthcare resource costs per patient were due to hospitalizations (year 1–4: 63.3–38.2%), followed by indirect costs (year 1–4: 12.2–29.0%), pharmacy (year 1–4: 11.9–19.9%), and outpatient care (year 1–4: 12.6–12.9%). Mean (SD) per patient HF-related costs decreased from 2509.6 (3518.5) to 1234.6 (1534.1) Euros (50% cost reduction). At baseline, 70.1% were taking beta-blockers, 56.3% renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, 11.8% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and 8.9% SGLT2 inhibitors. At 12 months, these numbers were 72.3%, 65.4%, 18.9% and 9.8%, respectively.

Conclusions

Although the economic burden of HF decreased over time since diagnosis, it is still substantial. This reduction could be partially related to a survival bias (sick patients died early), but also to a better HF management. Despite that, there is still much room for improvement.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is a common condition in clinical practice, with a prevalence of around 2% and an incidence of about 0.3 per 100 person-years, and increasing over time [1, 2]. Despite traditional treatments with renin angiotensin system inhibitors, beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, morbidity and mortality remain high. For instance, a recent study has shown that after a 5-year follow-up period, until 2019, nearly 28% of patients with HF had died [3]. In addition, HF hospitalizations are frequent in this population and represent an inflection point in the evolution of patients with HF, as they markedly increase the risk for further complications, including death and HF rehospitalizations. Of note, in the last decade the volume of HF hospitalizations has increased over time, with a thirty-day readmission rate of around 20% [4,5,6,7].

HF is associated with a substantial economic burden, including direct health care costs (hospitalizations, outpatient care) and indirect costs, particularly, work productivity loss [8]. However, despite the large number of studies that have analyzed the socio-economic consequences of HF, further research is warranted. First, there are important differences between countries, particularly high vs low- and middle-income countries. In addition, the majority of these studies have been limited to short periods of follow-up, or have compared different years, but with a different cohort of patients each year, have not analyzed costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) according to HF subtypes, nor have they considered the impact of indirect costs [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, although the majority of guidelines recognize the high costs associated with HF, a study that includes an incident cohort of HF patients, with any ejection fraction (EF) and long follow-up seems necessary [16, 17].

The objective of the study was to describe HCRU and costs, including HF-related and all-cause, for general practitioner and specialist outpatient visits, hospitalisations, pharmacy and indirect costs, over 4 years since index date (baseline), in an overall incident HF cohort of newly diagnosed patients (de novo HF), and also stratified by EF subgroups.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study that analyzed anonymized, integrated and computerised medical records from 2012 through 2019 from seven Spanish Autonomous Communities, with a total of 1.8 million patients, provided by the validated BIG-PAC database [1, 6, 11, 18]. Previous studies have proved the representativeness of the Spanish population through this database. Thus, it has been demonstrated that the age pyramids of the Spanish population and the BIG-PAC database are similar [18]. The research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain. The requirement for obtaining written informed consent was waived by the Research Ethics Committee of HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain, as the study used secondary data fully anonymized.

Patients with ≥ 1 new inpatient or outpatient HF diagnosis (ICD-10 code) between January 2013 and September 2019 were included and followed-up during a 4-year period from diagnosis. The study included adults with at least one year of enrolment in the database prior to index date (the first qualifying HF diagnosis). The baseline period was one year prior to the index date. Patients with chronic kidney disease stage V requiring dialysis before the index date were excluded, as the management of patients on dialysis is different from the general population with HF, and also because dialysis by itself generates particularly high associated costs, which would alter the real costs of the patient with HF. HF patients were classified according to left ventricular EF at the moment of diagnosis: HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) was defined as an EF value of ≥ 50% (subtype 1: EF 50 to < 60%; subtype 2: EF ≥ 60%), HF with reduced EF (HFrEF) as an EF value of ≤ 40%, HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) as an EF value > 40% and < 50%, and HF with unspecified EF (HFuEF) included patients without echocardiograph data [7].

Biodemographic data, cardiovascular risk factors, vascular disease, and other comorbidities during the baseline period were retrieved. In addition, newly-prescribed HF treatments at baseline (at the moment of diagnosis) and among survivors after 12 months of follow-up after diagnosis were also recorded. During the study, few losses of follow-up were observed (approximately 3%). All-cause and HF-related HCRU and costs were estimated separately for each year after the index date during a 4-year period. These data included: inpatient care (number of hospitalizations > 24 h, length of hospital stays and costs estimated by the unit cost per day), outpatient care (number of visits to a general practitioner, number of visits to a specialist, costs estimated by the unit cost per general practitioner and specialist visit), pharmacy (number of prescriptions, total prescription costs estimated based on retail price + value-added tax [VAT]) and costs relating to work productivity loss (indirect cost), estimated by the unit cost per day associated to the number of work absences in days reported in primary care setting, according to the mean interprofessional wage. Outpatient costs were calculated based on standard cost for general practitioners/ specialist visits. Costs of inpatient stays were calculated based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based reimbursement of the stays. Pharmacy costs were based on full price of product. Costs of absence from work were calculated by multiplying the number of days of absence from work due to sickness by the mean daily salary of a working person in Spain (available at https://www.ine.es/dynt3/inebase/index.htm?padre=4563&capsel=4563. Accessed: 15/05/2020). All costs were presented in euros. Inpatient and outpatient visits with any HF ICD-10 code were assumed to be HF-related HCRU. Health Statistics by the National Statistics Institute (INE in Spanish, www.ine.es) were used as the source for unit costs (Supplementary table 1). All data were analyzed for the overall HF population and according to EF phenotype.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics of patients were summarised using descriptive statistics. For continuous variables, the number of patients, mean and standard deviation (SD) were reported. Frequency distributions with quantity and percentages were reported for categorical variables. For years 1 to 4, the rates of HCRU with 95% confidence interval (CI), including the number of hospitalizations and outpatient visits (general practitioners and specialist overall and HF-related), were estimated by year after the index date. Person-time at risk was determined from all eligible patients with an HF diagnosis at the beginning of the calendar year. The CI for HCRU was estimated using nonparametric bootstrapping method (SciPy package) [19, 20], with the number of resampling set at 1,000. Length of inpatient stays in days, work absences in days, and number of prescriptions per patient were calculated as mean (SD), and median (IQR). All costs were estimated as mean (SD), and median (IQR) per patient. All data were analyzed using the statistical package SPSS v25.0.

Results

A total of 19,961 patients with a new diagnosis of HF were included in the study, of whom 43.5% had HFrEF, 26.3% HFpEF, 5.1% HFmrEF and in 25.1% the EF was unknown (58.1%, 35.1% and 6.8%, respectively, when considering only those patients with known EF). In the overall HF population, mean age was 69.7 (19.0) years and 53.8% of patients were men. With regard to comorbidities, 59.1% of patients had hypertension, 27.6% type 2 diabetes, 33.1% coronary artery disease, 28.2% atrial fibrillation and 26.7% chronic kidney disease. Compared to patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF were older, more commonly female and had a higher prevalence of atrial fibrillation at baseline. By contrast, patients with HFrEF more frequently had type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, stroke and peripheral artery disease. Patients with HFmrEF shared clinical characteristics of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF patients (Table 1).

Table 1 Baseline clinical characteristics in the incident HF cohort (Index Date 2013—2019)
Full size table

With regard to treatments, at baseline, 70.1% of patients were taking beta blockers, 56.3% renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor II blockers: 50.2%; sacubitril-valsartan: 6.1%), 11.8% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and 8.9% sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). After 12 months of follow-up, the proportion of surviving patients with these treatments increased to 72.3%, 65.4%, 18.9% and 9.8%, respectively. The prescription of disease modifying HF drugs were more frequent in patients with HFrEF than in the other HF subtypes (Table 2).

Table 2 Treatmentsa (baseline and at month 12) in the incident HF cohort (Index Date 2013—2019)
Full size table

HCRU (outpatient visits and hospitalizations) is shown in Fig. 1a and b, Table 3 and Supplementary Table 2. Overall rates of outpatient visits decreased from 1444 (95% CI 1434.3–1455.3) to 1129.8 (95% CI 1101.1–1156.8) per 100 person-years and hospitalizations from 64.9 (95% CI 64.0–65.9) to 19 (17.9–20.0) per 100 person-years, respectively (Fig. 1a). Additionally, number of days absent from work decreased from 34.9 (21.2) days to 28.5 (18.9) in the HF population (Table 3). The majority of HCRU were HF-related (outpatient visits: 67.8–79.6%; hospitalizations: 82.6–95.1%) (Fig. 1b). HCRU was higher in patients with HFrEF than in patients with HFpEF. Patients with HFmrEF had intermediate HCRU rates. During the follow-up there was a decrease in HCRU, regardless of HF subtypes. Length of hospital stays were longer in patients with HFrEF than in patients with HFpEF, with intermediate values in those patients with HFmrEF. Similarly, work absences and prescriptions were more frequent in the HFrEF population compared to HFpEF patients.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Outpatient visits and hospitalization in the total incident HF Cohort. a All-cause HCRU. b HF related HCRU

Full size image
Table 3 HCRU in the Incident HF Cohort
Full size table

Overall and HF-related healthcare resource costs per patient by years since index date are shown in Figs. 2a and b and Supplementary Tables 3 and 4. Total mean (SD) per patient overall cost decreased from 3274.7 (4053.4) to 1931.2 (1949.1) Euros (41% cost reduction) (Fig. 2a), and mean (SD) per patient HF-related costs decreased from 2509.6 (3518.5) to 1234.6 (1534.1) Euros (50% cost reduction) (Fig. 2b). When considering overall healthcare resource costs per patient in the 4 years after HF diagnosis, the majority of costs were due to hospitalizations (year 1: 53.5%; year 4: 29.1%), followed by pharmacy (year 1: 21.3%; year 4: 29.7%), indirect costs (year 1: 12.8%; year 4: 28.4%), and outpatient care (year 1: 12.4%; year 4: 12.8%). When analyzing HF-related healthcare resource costs per patient in the same 4 years, the majority of costs were due to hospitalizations (year 1: range: 63.3%; year 4: 38.2%), followed by indirect costs (year 1: 12.2%; year 4: 29.0%), pharmacy (year 1: 11.9%; year 4: 19.9%), and outpatient care (year 1: 12.6%; year 4: 12.9%). Overall and HF-related healthcare resource costs per patient were greater in patients with HFrEF compared to patients with HFpEF, with intermediate values for patients with HFmrEF.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Healthcare resource costs per patients by years since index in the total Incident HF cohort. a Overall healthcare resource costs per patients. b HF-related healthcare resource costs per patients

Full size image

Discussion

This study showed that in Spain economic burden of patients with HF was high. HCRU and costs decreased over time since diagnosis, in part possibly due to a survival bias, but also due to the use of HF therapies. Despite that, there is still much room for improvement and a higher use of guideline-recommended therapies would be desirable.

This study, used data from electronic health records of nearly two million people who were fully anonymized and integrated. A number of studies have shown the value of the secondary use of electronic health record datasets to provide relevant information about the evolution and management of the HF population and other chronic disease [21,22,23,24]. We have endeavored to add to that literature using the BIG-PAC database in Spain which has been demonstrated to have validity and representativeness in assessing clinical profiles, management and healthcare costs of HF in Spain [1, 6, 11, 18].

In nearly 20,000 patients with newly diagnosed HF (de novo HF), around 44% of patients had HFrEF and 26% HFpEF (58% and 25%, respectively if we consider only those with known EF). The relative proportions of the EF phenotypes in patients with HF varies considerably across countries and across studies. Thus, in a study performed in China, 57% of patients had HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, and 22% HFrEF [3]. In a study performed in US, 30.8% had HFpEF, 45.9% HFrEF, and the remaining 23.3% were unspecified in terms of HF type [4]. In a study performed in Sweeden, 64.5% of patients had HFrEF and 35.5% HFpEF [14]. In other study performed in Spain, the proportion of patients among different HF subtypes clearly depending on the specialty that attended patients (i.e., internal medicine vs cardiology) [25]. These differences can be partly attributable to the proportion of patients with unknown EF in each study, the age of their patients, and the clinical setting in which patients are attended [3, 4, 12, 14, 25, 26]. However, as the BIG-PAC database collected information from electronic medical records of both inpatient and outpatient settings from hospital specialties and primary care in seven different Autonomous Communities in Spain, the information provided was balanced, comprehensive and with a lower risk of bias, supporting that the results can be extended to the whole Spanish population [1, 11, 18].

With regard to the use of disease modifying HF drugs, at 12 months after initial HF diagnosis, 72% of patients were taking beta blockers, 67% renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (11% sacubitril-valsartan), 19% mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and 10% SGLT2i (74%, 72.5% -12.0%-, 19%, and 9% among patients with HFrEF, respectively). Although it should be considered that recommendations from ESC guidelines have changed within the study period (i.e., current ESC guidelines for treatment of HF did not include SGLT2i until late in our study period), our data showed that a higher use of guideline-recommended therapies would be desirable [7, 27]. The PARADIGM-HF trial of sacubitril-valsartan was published in 2014 [28] and clinical trials showing the benefits of SGLT2i in both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were published later. Our study extends to a time before these clinical trials and the most recent guidelines [28,29,30,31,32,33,34], so we would not expect the uptake of new guidelines to be evident in our results. However, as these drugs have demonstrated robust clinical benefits over traditional approach, their use should be highly promoted, as current European guidelines recommend [7].

We found a marked decrease in the use of healthcare resources over a 4-year follow-up period since HF diagnosis, including outpatient care and hospitalizations, particularly for HF hospitalizations (from 61.7 to 15.7 per 100 person-years). Some of this decrease may be attributable to a survival bias, in which healthier patients who use fewer resources survive longer than sicker patients or with a delayed care/diagnosis and this could explain some of the differences found with other studies, with different methodology and HF population (i.e., incident vs prevalent cohorts, outpatient vs in hospital patients, differences in clinical profile, etc.) [35, 36]. But there are other factors that may contribute to this trend. First, the awareness of HF has increased, in part, due to the recent availability of new, more effective treatments such as sacubitril-valsartan and SGLT2i—leading to an improvement of the early diagnosis and initiation of HF treatment [37]. It has been demonstrated that time to initiation of disease modifying therapies is an important clinical target. Rapid introduction and up-titration of therapy and introduction early in the disease progression have been shown to have clinical benefits [38]. In addition, general practitioners play a key role in the diagnosis and chronic management of this population. Our study showed that mean number of HF-related general practitioner visits per patients was higher than for specialist visits, providing more opportunity for monitoring and management. Different studies have demonstrated that a better coordination between different healthcare levels reduces not only hospitalization, but also mortality among patients with HF [39, 40]. Despite that, the risk of readmissions following a HF hospitalization or visit to the emergency department due to HF decompensation is still high [12, 41]. Delaying medical care is associated with a higher HF burden, including medical costs [38, 42].

We looked at work absences, which are available in this healthcare database, as a way to assess the indirect costs associated with HF. Work absences only represent part of the indirect costs of HF as mean age of the HF population was 70 years; beyond usual working age. Indirect costs include loss of work, but may also include informal caregiving, which may be similar or greater than the direct health care costs [8]. As a result, particular attention should be paid on this issue and should be included in future research.

With regard to HF-related healthcare costs per patient, HF hospitalizations were the most important determinant of total cost, followed by indirect costs, pharmacy and outpatient care. Of note, HF-related healthcare costs decreased by 50% after a 4-year period of follow-up. However, this reduction was not homogeneous, as there was a marked decrease of costs related to hospitalizations and outpatient care, whereas costs related to pharmacy only showed a small decrease and indirect costs increased over time. This means that to actually reduce HF cost burden, it is necessary to reduce HF hospitalizations, particularly among high-risk patients, such as those with a recent worsening HF. Not only the early implementation of disease modifying HF treatment is important, but also improving the coordination between different healthcare levels [9, 14, 39, 43, 44]. This would facilitate the optimization of the management of patients with HF [44, 45]. In fact, improving adherence to guideline-recommended therapy is associated with a reduction of healthcare costs [39, 44, 46]. In this context, those drugs that provide benefits on HF hospitalizations, could be more cost-effective [47]. The costs related to pharmacy also showed a small reduction during follow-up. Since HF hospitalizations are the main driver of costs, those drugs that reduce these outcomes may translate into a reduction of healthcare costs. Thus, recent studies have shown that the addition of SGLT2i to standard therapy represents a highly cost-effective approach [48,49,50]. In other words, delaying the prescription of disease modifying HF drugs is associated with a higher risk of unwanted events and increased healthcare costs [38, 42]. In our study, indirect costs increased during the study period. Optimization of treatment after first diagnosis could help not only to reduce the length of inpatient stays, and the number of outpatient visits, but periods of disability that contribute to work absence [51, 52].

Finally, our study showed that overall and HF-related healthcare resource use and costs per patient were greater in patients with HFrEF compared to other HF subtypes. Not only are there relevant differences in the clinical profile of patients and the prescription of HF drugs across EF phenotypes, but as other authors have reported, also the use of invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is more common in patients with HFrEF [1, 44, 45]. Previous studies have shown an inverse relationship between EF and costs, with more invasive procedures and more readmissions in patients with lower EF [22, 23, 53].

Due to the retrospective study design, only those variables recorded in the medical history of patients could be used. In addition, discounting costs or no sensitivity analysis for price ranges was not considered. Moreover, HF treatments were recorded at baseline and during 12 months of follow-up from diagnosis, but not thereafter. However, the large number of patients included in the study mitigates these limitations. In addition, as costs directly depend on the healthcare system characteristics, these results can be extended only to those locations in which patients with HF have a similar clinical profile and healthcare management.

In conclusion, the HCRU and economic burden of HF were highest in the initial period after first diagnosis for all EF phenotypes, owing largely to high inpatient costs. Despite costs decreased over time, they remained high. The observed decline could be related with survival bias, but also to a better management of patients with HF, including a higher proportion of patients receiving disease modifying HF drugs. Despite that, there is still room for improvement in the identification and treatment of patients with HF early in disease progression, as recommended in current guidance, when initial hospitalizations and readmissions are more common, and high costs could substantially be reduced.

Availability of data and materials

This was a secondary data study using the BIG-PAC® database, and the data can be obtained upon reasonable request to Atrys Health S.A. (Ignacio Hernández. E-mail: ihernandez@atryshealth.com).

References

  1. Escobar C, Palacios B, Varela L, et al. Prevalence, Characteristics, Management and Outcomes of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved, Mildly Reduced, and Reduced Ejection Fraction in Spain. J Clin Med. 2022;11(17):5199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Savarese G, Becher PM, Lund LH, et al. Global burden of heart failure: a comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc Res. 2023;118(17):3272–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen S, Huang Z, Liang Y, et al. Five-year mortality of heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in a 4880 Chinese cohort. ESC Heart Fail. 2022;9(4):2336–47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Clark KAA, Reinhardt SW, Chouairi F, et al. Trends in Heart Failure Hospitalizations in the US from 2008 to 2018. J Card Fail. 2022;28(2):171–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jha AK, Ojha CP, Krishnan AM, Paul TK. Thirty-day readmission in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Insights from the nationwide readmission database. World J Cardiol. 2022;14(9):473–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Escobar C, Varela L, Palacios B, et al. Clinical characteristics, management, and one-year risk of complications among patients with heart failure with and without type 2 diabetes in Spain. Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2022;222(4):195–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McDonagh T, Metra M, Adamo M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(36):3599–726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hessel FP. Overview of the socio-economic consequences of heart failure. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2021;11(1):254–62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Levy AR, Johnston KM, Daoust A, et al. Health expenditures after first hospital admission for heart failure in Nova Scotia, Canada: a retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2021;9(3):E826–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Escobar C, Varela L, Palacios B, et al. Costs and healthcare utilisation of patients with heart failure in Spain. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):964.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Escobar C, Palacios B, Varela L, et al. Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with heart failure with preserved, mildly reduced, and reduced ejection fraction in Spain. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):1241.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lam CSP, Wood R, Vaduganathan M, et al. Contemporary economic burden in a real-world heart failure population with Commercial and Medicare supplemental plans. Clin Cardiol. 2021;44(5):646–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bueno H, Goñi C, Salguero-Bodes R, et al. Primary vs. Secondary Heart Failure Diagnosis: differences in clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization and cost. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:818525.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Boman K, Lindmark K, Stålhammar J, et al. Healthcare resource utilisation and costs associated with a heart failure diagnosis: a retrospective, population-based cohort study in Sweden. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10):e053806.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yingchoncharoen T, Wu TC, Choi DJ, et al. Economic Burden of Heart Failure in Asian Countries with Different Healthcare Systems. Korean Circ J. 2021;51(8):681–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ostrominski JW, Hirji S, Bhatt AS, et al. Cost and value in contemporary heart failure clinical guidance documents. JACC Heart Fail. 2022;10(1):1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heidenreich PA, Fonarow GC, Opsha Y, et al. Economic issues in heart failure in the United States. J Card Fail. 2022;28(3):453–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sicras-Mainar A, Sicras-Navarro A, Palacios B, Varela L, Delgado JF. Epidemiology and treatment of heart failure in Spain: the HF-PATHWAYS study. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2022;75(1):31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Efron B. Better bootstrap confidence intervals. J Am Stat Assoc. 1987;82(397):171–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. scipy.stats.bootstrap. Available at: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.stats.bootstrap.html. Accessed Jan 2023.

  21. Nagamine T, Gillette B, Kahoun J, et al. Data-driven identification of heart failure disease states and progression pathways using electronic health records. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):17871.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi E, Schuetz A, Stewart WF, Sun J. Medical concept representation learning from electronic health records and its application on heart failure prediction. arXiv. 2017;https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1602.03686.

  23. Vetrano DL, Roso-Llorach A, Fernández S, et al. Twelve-year clinical trajectories of multimorbidity in a population of older adults. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):3223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Maggioni AP, Orso F, Calabria S, et al. The real-world evidence of heart failure: findings from 41 413 patients of the ARNO database. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(4):402–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Álvarez-García J, Salamanca-Bautista P, Ferrero-Gregori A, et al. Prognostic Impact of Physician Specialty on the Prognosis of Outpatients With Heart Failure: Propensity Matched Analysis of the REDINSCOR and RICA Registries. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2017;70(5):347–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaichi R, Marume K, Nakai M, et al. Relationship between heart failure hospitalization costs and left ventricular ejection fraction in an advanced aging society. Circ Rep. 2021;4(1):48–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Seferovic PM, Ponikowski P, Anker SD, et al. Clinical practice update on heart failure 2019: pharmacotherapy, procedures, devices and patient management. An expert consensus meeting report of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(10):1169–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, et al. Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(11):993–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(27):2129–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. McMurray JJV, Solomon SD, Inzucchi SE, et al. Dapagliflozin in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(21):1995–2008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Packer M, Anker SD, Butler J, et al. Cardiovascular and renal outcomes with Empagliflozin in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(15):1413–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bhatt DL, Szarek M, Steg PG, et al. Sotagliflozin in patients with diabetes and recent worsening heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(2):117–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(16):1451–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Solomon SD, McMurray JJV, Claggett B, et al. Dapagliflozin in heart failure with mildly reduced or preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1089–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ambrosy AP, Parikh RV, Sung SH, et al. Analysis of worsening heart failure events in an integrated health care system. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;80(2):111–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Norhammar A, Bodegard J, Vanderheyden M, et al. Prevalence, outcomes and costs of a contemporary, multinational population with heart failure. Heart. 2023;109(7):548–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shimomoto R, Kubo T, Yamanaka F, et al. Current state of knowledge and information sharing among home healthcare professionals involved in heart failure management. J Cardiol. 2023;81(3):292–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Berg DD, Jhund PS, Docherty KF, et al. Time to Clinical Benefit of Dapagliflozin and Significance of Prior Heart Failure Hospitalization in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. JAMA Cardiol. 2021;6(5):499–507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Comín-Colet J, Verdú-Rotellar JM, Vela E, et al. Efficacy of an integrated hospital-primary care program for heart failure: a population-based analysis of 56,742 patients. Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014;67(4):283–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Pimienta González R, Pérez Cánovas E, Morales Rodríguez Z, Hernández Afonso JS. Satisfaction of primary care physicians with a new consultation model integrated with cardiology. Aten Primaria. 2021;53(8):102120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thandra A, Balakrishna AM, Walters RW, et al. Trends in and predictors of multiple readmissions following heart failure hospitalization: A National wide analysis from the United States. Am J Med Sci. 2023;365(2):145–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Thomas A, Valero-Elizondo J, Khera R, et al. Forgone Medical Care Associated With Increased Health Care Costs Among the U.S. Heart Failure Population. JACC Heart Fail. 2021;9(10):710–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chang GM, Chen JY, Kuo WY, Tung YC. Associations of continuity and coordination of care with outcomes and costs after discharge among patients with heart failure: a nationwide population-based study. Int J Cardiol. 2022;353:54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Givertz MM, Yang M, Hess GP, et al. Resource utilization and costs among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction following a worsening heart failure event. ESC Heart Fail. 2021;8(3):1915–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Afzal A, van Zyl J, Nisar T, et al. Trends in Hospital Admissions for Systolic and Diastolic Heart Failure in the United States Between 2004 and 2017. Am J Cardiol. 2022;171:99–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yasin ZM, Anderson PD, Lingman M, et al. Receiving care according to national heart failure guidelines is associated with lower total costs: an observational study in Region Halland, Sweden. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 2021;7(3):280–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nguyen BN, Mital S, Bugden S, Nguyen HV. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin and empagliflozin for treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Int J Cardiol. 2023;376:83–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tafazzoli A, Reifsnider OS, Bellanca L, et al. A European multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Eur J Health Econ. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-022-01555-6. Epub ahead of print.

  49. Mohammadnezhad G, Azadmehr B, Mirheidari M, Yousefi N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): a systematic review. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2022;20(1):62.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Savira F, Wang BH, Kompa AR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in chronic heart failure: an analysis from the Australian healthcare perspective. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2021;28(9):975–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lesyuk W, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P. Cost-of-illness studies in heart failure: a systematic review 2004–2016. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2018;18(1):74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Bundgaard J, Mogensen UM, Christensen S, et al. Direct and indirect costs of heart failure in relation to diabetes status - A nationwide study. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;32(8):1880–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kwok CS, Abramov D, Parwani P, et al. Cost of inpatient heart failure care and 30-day readmissions in the United States. Int J Cardiol. 2021;329:115–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was fully funded by AstraZeneca.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiology Department, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, 28046, Spain

    Carlos Escobar

  2. AstraZeneca Farmaceutica, Madrid, 28050, Spain

    Beatriz Palacios, Victoria Gonzalez & Martín Gutiérrez

  3. Evidera, London, W6 8BJ, UK

    Mai Duong

  4. AstraZeneca, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA

    Hungta Chen & Phillip R. Hunt

  5. Evidera, Stockholm, 113 21, Sweden

    Nahila Justo

  6. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, 17177, Sweden

    Nahila Justo

  7. Evidera, Barcelona, 08005, Spain

    Javier Cid-Ruzafa

  8. Atrys Health, Madrid, 28002, Spain

    Ignacio Hernández

  9. Cardiology Department, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, CIBERCV, Madrid, 28041, Spain

    Juan F. Delgado

Authors
  1. Carlos Escobar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beatriz Palacios
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victoria Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martín Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mai Duong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hungta Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nahila Justo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Javier Cid-Ruzafa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ignacio Hernández
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Phillip R. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Juan F. Delgado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Data curation, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Formal analysis, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Funding acquisition, B.P., V.G., M.D. and H.C.; Investigation, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Methodology, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Resources, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D.; Writing—original draft, C.E. and J.F.D.; Writing—review and editing, C.E., B.P., V.G., M.G., M.D., H.C., N.J., J.C.-R., I.H., P.R.H. and J.F.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan F. Delgado.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of HM Hospitales (protocol code D1699R00003 on 17 December 2020) for studies involving humans. Informed consent was waived by the Research Ethics Committee of HM Hospitales, Madrid, Spain, as this was a retrospective study using BIG-PAC®, a stablished database, and, before export, the data were rigorously anonymized and dissociated, making individual identification impossible.

Consent for publication

Not applicable, as this study used secondary data fully anonymized.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.

Description of costs/units (2019)*. Supplementary Table 2. Outpatient visits and hospitalization in the incident HF Cohort. Supplementary Table 3. Overall healthcare resource costs per patients by years since index in the incident HF cohort. Supplementary Table 4. HF-related healthcare resource costs per patients by years since index in the incident HF cohort.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Escobar, C., Palacios, B., Gonzalez, V. et al. Evolution of economic burden of heart failure by ejection fraction in newly diagnosed patients in Spain. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 1340 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10376-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10376-z

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us