Background Clinical practice guidelines have been criticized for paying insufficient attention to the unique needs of patients with advanced age and multiple comorbid conditions. However, little empiric research is available to inform this topic. Methods We conducted telephone interviews with staff physicians and nurse practitioners in 4 VA health care systems. Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of national heart failure guidelines for patients of different ages and levels of comorbid burden on a five point scale and to comment on the reasons for their ratings. Results Among 139 clinicians contacted, 65 (47%) completed the interview. Half (49%) were women and 48 (74%) were general internists or family practitioners. On a five-point scale assessing the usefulness of clinical practice guidelines for heart failure, the mean response ranged from 4.4 (+/− 0.7) for patients age <65 years with few comorbidities to 3.5 (+/− 1.2) for patients age >80 years with multiple comorbidities (P<.001). The difference in perceived usefulness varied more by patient age than by the degree of comorbidity (P=.02). Four major concepts underlay the perceived utility of guidelines across different patient types: (a) harms of treatment and patients’ clinical and pharmacologic complexity; (b) expected benefits of treatment; (c) patient preferences and abilities; and (d) confidence in the validity of guideline recommendations. Conclusions Clinicians perceive heart failure guidelines to be substantially less useful for patients with older age and greater comorbid burden. Concerns about the clinical and pharmacologic complexity of these patients and the expected benefits of drug therapy were commonly invoked as reasons for this skepticism.

BACKGROUND: Older patients often receive less guideline-concordant care for heart failure than younger patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether age differences in heart failure care are explained by patient, provider, and health system characteristics and/or by chartdocumented reasons for non-adherence to guidelines. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Retrospective cohort study of 2,772 ambulatory veterans with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% from a 2004 nationwide medical record review program (the VA External Peer Review Program). MAIN MEASURES: Ambulatory use of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and beta blockers. RESULTS: Among 2,772 patients, mean age was 73 +/− 10 years, 87% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB, and 82% received a beta blocker. When patients with explicit chart-documented reasons for not receiving these drugs were excluded, 95% received an ACE inhibitor or ARB and 89% received a beta blocker. In multivariable analyses controlling for a variety of patient and health system characteristics, the adjusted odds ratio for ACE-inhibitor and ARB use was 0.43 (95% CI 0.24-0.78) for patients age 80 and over vs. those age 50-64 years, and the adjusted odds ratio for beta blocker use was 0.66 (95% CI 0.48-0.93) between the two age groups. The magnitude of these associations was similar but not statistically significant after excluding patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing ACE inhibitors or ARBs and beta blockers. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of veterans receive guideline-recommended medications for heart failure. Older veterans are consistently less likely to receive these drugs, although these differences were no longer significant when accounting for patients with chart-documented reasons for not prescribing these drugs. Closely evaluating reasons for non-prescribing in older adults is essential to assessing whether non-treatment represents good clinical judgment or missed opportunities to improve care.KEY WORDS: guideline adherence; heart failure; aging; health services research; quality of care.