Clinical service organisation for heart failure

Disease management interventions for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Transitional care interventions reduce unplanned hospital readmissions in high-risk older adults

BACKGROUND

Acute hospital services account for the largest proportion of health care system budgets, and older adults are the most frequent users. As a result, older people who have been recently discharged from hospital may be at greater risk of readmission. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of transitional care interventions on unplanned hospital readmissions within 28 days, 12 weeks and 24 weeks following hospital discharge.

METHOD

The present study was a randomised controlled trial (ACTRN12608000202369). The trial involved 222 participants who were recruited from medical wards in two metropolitan hospitals in Australia. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 65 years and over, admitted with a medical diagnosis and had at least one risk factor for readmission. Participants were randomised to one of four groups: standard care, exercise program only, Nurse Home visit and Telephone follow-up (N-HaT), or Exercise program and Nurse Home visit and Telephone follow-up (ExN-HaT). Socio-demographics, health and functional ability were assessed at baseline, 28 days, 12 weeks and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure was unplanned hospital readmission which was defined as any hospital admission for an unforeseen or unplanned cause.

RESULTS

Participants in the ExN-HaT or the N-HaT groups were 3.6 times and 2.6 times respectively significantly less likely to have an unplanned readmission 28 days following discharge (ExN-HaT group HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.87, p = 0.029; N-HaT group HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.13-1.07, p = 0.067). Participants in the ExN-HaT or the N-HaT groups were 2.13 and 2.63 times respectively less likely to have an unplanned readmission in the 12 weeks after discharge (ExN-HaT group HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.97, p = 0.014; N-HaT group HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.82, p = 0.040). At 24 weeks after discharge, there were no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Multifaceted transitional care interventions across hospital and community settings are beneficial, with lower hospital readmission rates observed in those receiving more transitional intervention components, although only in first 12 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( ACTRN12608000202369 ).

Depression in Community-Dwelling Elderly Patients With Heart Failure

The present cross-sectional study discussed the relationship between comorbid depression, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and dietary self-efficacy among Taiwanese community-dwelling elderly patients with heart failure (HF). Specifically, the study examined 175 community-dwelling elderly patients with HF between July 2013 and June 2014. In total, 47.13% of the patients exhibited symptoms of depression. Those without a spouse, who were currently employed, who had an ejection fraction <30%, who had been readmitted to the hospital 2 or more times, and who had a high level of HF symptom distress were significantly more likely to be depressed. Therefore, it is crucial that care programs designed for these patients include the self-management of HF symptoms, psychological consultations, cognitive behavioral therapy, and physical exercise.

Organization of care for persons with HIV-infection: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of the organization of care: case management, multidisciplinary care, multi-faceted treatment, hours of service, outreach programs and health information systems on medical, immunological, virological, psychosocial and economic outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and 10 other electronic databases from 1 January 1980 to April, 2012 for both experimental and controlled observational studies. Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three of which were conducted in low-middle income settings. Patient characteristics, study design, organization measures and outcomes data were abstracted independently by two reviewers from all studies. A risk of bias tool was applied to RCTs and a separate tool was used to assess the quality of observational studies. This review concludes that case management interventions were most consistently associated with improvements in immunological outcomes but case management demonstrates no clear association with other outcome measures. The same mixed results were also identified for multidisciplinary and multi-faceted care interventions. Eight studies with an outreach intervention were identified and demonstrated improvements or non-inferiority with respect to mortality, receipt of antiretroviral medications, immunological outcomes, improvements in healthcare utilization and lower reported healthcare costs when compared to usual care. Of the interventions examined in this review, sustained in-person case management and outreach interventions were most consistently associated with improved medical and economic outcomes, in particular antiretroviral prescribing, immunological outcomes and healthcare utilization. No firm conclusions can be reached about the impact of any one intervention on patient mortality.

Team-Based Care for Outpatients with Heart Failure

Management of heart failure requires a multidisciplinary team-based approach that includes coordination of numerous team members to ensure guideline-directed optimization of medical therapy, frequent and regular assessment of volume status, frequent education, use of cardiac rehabilitation, continued assessment for the use of advanced therapies, and advance care planning. All of these are important aspects of the management of this complex condition.

Symptom perceptions and self-care behaviors in patients who self-manage heart failure

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure (HF) are at heightened risk for acute exacerbation requiring hospitalization. Although timely reporting of symptoms can expedite outpatient treatment and avoid the need for hospitalization, few patients recognize and respond to symptoms until acutely ill.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore patients' perceptions of symptoms and self-care behaviors for symptom relief, leading up to a HF hospitalization.

METHODS

To examine prehospitalization symptom scenarios, semistructured interviews were conducted with 60 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated HF.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (61.7%) said that they had a sense that "something just wasn't quite right" before their symptoms began but were unable to specify further. Signs and symptoms most often recognized by the patients were related to dyspnea (85%), fatigue (53.3%), and edema (41.7%). Few patients interpreted their symptoms as being related to worsening HF and most often attributed symptoms to changes in diet (18.3%) and medications (13.3%). Twenty-six patients (43.3%) used self-care strategies to relieve symptoms before hospital admission. More than 40% of the patients had symptoms at least 2 weeks before hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the wide dissemination of HF evidence-based guidelines, important components of symptom self-management remain suboptimal. Because most of HF self-management occurs in the postdischarge environment, research is needed that identifies how patients interpret symptoms of HF in the specific contexts in which patients self-manage their HF. These findings suggest the need for interventions that will help patients expeditiously recognize, accurately interpret, and use appropriate and safe self-care strategies for symptoms.

Integrated care programmes for adults with chronic conditions: a meta-review

OBJECTIVE

To review systematic reviews and meta-analyses of integrated care programmes in chronically ill patients, with a focus on methodological quality, elements of integration assessed and effects reported.

DESIGN

Meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified in Medline (1946-March 2012), Embase (1980-March 2012), CINHAL (1981-March 2012) and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews (issue 1, 2012).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Methodological quality assessed by the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; elements of integration assessed using a published list of 10 key principles of integration; effects on patient-centred outcomes, process quality, use of healthcare and costs.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven systematic reviews were identified; conditions included chronic heart failure (CHF; 12 reviews), diabetes mellitus (DM; seven reviews), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; seven reviews) and asthma (five reviews). The median number of AMSTAR checklist items met was five: few reviewers searched for unpublished literature or described the primary studies and interventions in detail. Most reviews covered comprehensive services across the care continuum or standardization of care through inter-professional teams, but organizational culture, governance structure or financial management were rarely assessed. A majority of reviews found beneficial effects of integration, including reduced hospital admissions and re-admissions (in CHF and DM), improved adherence to treatment guidelines (DM, COPD and asthma) or quality of life (DM). Few reviews showed reductions in costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews of integrated care programmes were of mixed quality, assessed only some components of integration of care, and showed consistent benefits for some outcomes but not others.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.

METHODS

SEARCH METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

In-home care for optimizing chronic disease management in the community: an evidence-based analysis

BACKGROUND

The emerging attention on in-home care in Canada assumes that chronic disease management will be optimized if it takes place in the community as opposed to the health care setting. Both the patient and the health care system will benefit, the latter in terms of cost savings.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of care delivered in the home (i.e., in-home care) with no home care or with usual care/care received outside of the home (e.g., health care setting).

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was performed on January 25, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 1, 2006, until January 25, 2012.

REVIEW METHODS

An evidence-based analysis examined whether there is a difference in mortality, hospital utilization, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functional status, and disease-specific clinical measures for in-home care compared with no home care for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic wounds, and chronic disease / multimorbidity. Data was abstracted and analyzed in a pooled analysis using Review Manager. When needed, subgroup analysis was performed to address heterogeneity. The quality of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

RESULTS

The systematic literature search identified 1,277 citations from which 12 randomized controlled trials met the study criteria. Based on these, a 12% reduced risk for in-home care was shown for the outcome measure of combined events including all-cause mortality and hospitalizations (relative risk [RR]: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.97). Patients receiving in-home care had an average of 1 less unplanned hospitalization (mean difference [MD]: -1.03; 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.53) and an average of 1 less emergency department (ED) visit (MD: -1.32; 95% CI: -1.87 to -0.77). A beneficial effect of in-home care was also shown on activities of daily living (MD: -0.14; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.01), including less difficulty dressing above the waist or below the waist, grooming, bathing/showering, toileting, and feeding. These results were based on moderate quality of evidence. Additional beneficial effects of in-home care were shown for HRQOL although this was based on low quality of evidence.

LIMITATIONS

Different characterization of outcome measures across studies prevented the inclusion of all eligible studies for analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, education-based in-home care is effective at improving outcomes of patients with a range of heart disease severity when delivered by nurses during a single home visit or on an ongoing basis. In-home visits by occupational therapists and physical therapists targeting modification of tasks and the home environment improved functional activities for community-living adults with chronic disease.

A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SR) of clinical evidence are rightfully considered the basis for developing recommendations to support decisions in current practice. To avoid bias, SRs are expected to be systematic in their research strategy and are exhaustive. The drawback of the latter criteria relies in the substantial work needed to conduct and keep SRs updated. The objective of this paper is to compare a research strategy based on the review of a selected number of core journals, which we consider a 'pragmatic review' (PR), with that derived by an SR in estimating the efficacy of treatments.

METHODS

Five clinical areas were considered for the comparison between the two strategies: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dermatology, heart failure, renal diseases and stroke. We extracted a systematic sample from all the Cochrane SRs pertaining to each area and were published before April 2010. Two groups of journals were considered in the PR: six general journals that commonly published research for the five clinical areas, and five specialist journals with the highest impact factor in each area. To assess the agreement in the findings of SRs and PRs, we considered both the direction of the estimates and P-values.

RESULTS

A sample of 27 SRs included 171 overall analyses and 259 subgroup analyses related to primary outcomes. The PR captured one or more clinical trials in 24 of the 27 SRs (89%), and 118 of the 171 overall analyses (69%) were replicated. The PR supported the recommendations to use (or not) the study treatment in 11 of the 13 SRs (85%), which ended with a clinical recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We verified in a sample of SRs that the conclusion of a research strategy based on a pre-defined set of general and specialist medical journals is able to replicate almost all the clinical recommendations of a formal SR.

The effectiveness of chronic care management for heart failure: meta-regression analyses to explain the heterogeneity in outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To support decision making on how to best redesign chronic care by studying the heterogeneity in effectiveness across chronic care management evaluations for heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

Reviews and primary studies that evaluated chronic care management interventions.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review including meta-regression analyses to investigate three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness: study quality, length of follow-up, and number of chronic care model components.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our meta-analysis showed that chronic care management reduces mortality by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.72-0.94) and hospitalization by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.76-0.93) and improves quality of life by 7.14 points (95 percent CI: -9.55 to -4.72) on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. We could not explain the considerable differences in hospitalization and quality of life across the studies.

CONCLUSION

Chronic care management significantly reduces mortality. Positive effects on hospitalization and quality of life were shown, however, with substantial heterogeneity in effectiveness. This heterogeneity is not explained by study quality, length of follow-up, or the number of chronic care model components. More attention to the development and implementation of chronic care management is needed to support informed decision making on how to best redesign chronic care.

Clinical service organisation for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious, common condition associated with frequent hospitalisation. Several different disease management interventions (clinical service organisation interventions) for patients with CHF have been proposed.

OBJECTIVES

To update the previously published review which assessed the effectiveness of disease management interventions for patients with CHF.

SEARCH METHODS

A number of databases were searched for the updated review: CENTRAL, (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and DARE, on The Cochrane Library, ( Issue 1 2009); MEDLINE (1950-January 2009); EMBASE (1980-January 2009); CINAHL (1982-January 2009); AMED (1985-January 2009). For the original review (but not the update) we had also searched: Science Citation Index Expanded (1981-2001); SIGLE (1980-2003); National Research Register (2003) and NHS Economic Evaluations Database (2001). We also searched reference lists of included studies for both the original and updated reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months follow up, comparing disease management interventions specifically directed at patients with CHF to usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Study authors were contacted for further information where necessary. Data were analysed and presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty five trials (5,942 people) were included. Interventions were classified by: (1) case management interventions (intense monitoring of patients following discharge often involving telephone follow up and home visits); (2) clinic interventions (follow up in a CHF clinic) and (3) multidisciplinary interventions (holistic approach bridging the gap between hospital admission and discharge home delivered by a team). The components, intensity and duration of the interventions varied, as did the 'usual care' comparator provided in different trials.Case management interventions were associated with reduction in all cause mortality at 12 months follow up, OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.91, but not at six months. No reductions were seen for deaths from CHF or cardiovascular causes. However, case management type interventions reduced CHF related readmissions at six month (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88, P = 0.007) and 12 month follow up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.76). Impact of these interventions on all cause hospital admissions was not apparent at six months but was at 12 months (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99, I(2) = 58%).   CHF clinic interventions (for six and 12 month follow up) revealed non-significant reductions in all cause mortality, CHF related admissions and all cause readmissions. Mortality was not reduced in the two studies that looked at multidisciplinary interventions. However, both all cause and CHF related readmissions were reduced (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, and 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.72, respectively). 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Amongst CHF patients who have previously been admitted to hospital for this condition there is now good evidence that case management type interventions led by a heart failure specialist nurse reduces CHF related readmissions after 12 months follow up, all cause readmissions and all cause mortality.  It is not possible to say what the optimal components of these case management type interventions are, however telephone follow up by the nurse specialist was a common component.Multidisciplinary interventions may be effective in reducing both CHF and all cause readmissions. There is currently limited evidence to support interventions whose major component is follow up in a CHF clinic.

A meta-review of evidence on heart failure disease management programs: the challenges of describing and synthesizing evidence on complex interventions

BACKGROUND

Despite favourable results from past meta-analyses, some recent large trials have not found heart failure (HF) disease management programs to be beneficial. To explore reasons for this, we evaluated evidence from existing meta-analyses.

METHODS

Systematic review incorporating meta-review was used. We selected meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published after 1995 in English that examined the effects of HF disease management programs on key outcomes. Databases searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), DARE, NHS EED, NHS HTA, Ageline, AMED, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL; cited references, experts and existing reviews were also searched.

RESULTS

15 meta-analyses were identified containing a mean of 18.5 randomized trials of HF interventions +/- 10.1 (range: 6 to 36). Overall quality of the meta-analyses was very mixed (Mean AMSTAR Score = 6.4 +/- 1.9; range 2-9). Reporting inadequacies were widespread around populations, intervention components, settings and characteristics, comparison, and comparator groups. Heterogeneity (statistical, clinical, and methodological) was not taken into account sufficiently when drawing conclusions from pooled analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses of heart failure disease management programs have promising findings but often fail to report key characteristics of populations, interventions, and comparisons. Existing reviews are of mixed quality and do not adequately take account of program complexity and heterogeneity.

Consumer-oriented interventions for evidence-based prescribing and medicines use: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Numerous systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, but this research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of reviews on consumers' medicines use also varies widely. Such differences create challenges for decision makers seeking review-level evidence to inform decisions about medicines use.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote evidence-based prescribing for, and medicines use, by consumers. We sought evidence on the effects on health and other outcomes for healthcare consumers, professionals and services.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching both databases from start date to Issue 3 2008. We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. Standardised forms were used to extract data, and reviews were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR instrument. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and a further synthesis step was used to give bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors selected reviews, extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 reviews (18 Cochrane, 19 non-Cochrane), of varied methodological quality.Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation, skills acquisition and information provision. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most commonly reported outcome, but others such as clinical (health and wellbeing), service use and knowledge outcomes were also reported. Reviews rarely reported adverse events or harms, and the evidence was sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.Promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines use outcomes (eg adverse events, knowledge) included self-monitoring and self-management, simplified dosing and interventions directly involving pharmacists. Other strategies showed promise in relation to adherence but their effects were less consistent. These included reminders; education combined with self-management skills training, counselling or support; financial incentives; and lay health worker interventions.No interventions were effective to improve all medicines use outcomes across all diseases, populations or settings. For some interventions, such as information or education provided alone, the evidence suggests ineffectiveness; for many others there is insufficient evidence to determine effects on medicines use outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform these decisions and also to consider the range of interventions available; while researchers and funders can use this overview to determine where research is needed. However, the limitations of the literature relating to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and specific populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered.

Improvement of primary care for patients with chronic heart failure: a study protocol for a cluster randomised trial comparing two strategies

Background

Many patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), a common condition with high morbidity and mortality rates, receive treatment in primary care. To improve the management of CHF in primary care, we developed an implementation programme comprised of educational and organisational components, with support by a practice visitor and focus both on drug treatment and lifestyle advice, and on organisation of care within the practice and collaboration with other healthcare providers. Tailoring has been shown to improve the success of implementation programmes, but little is known about what would be best methods for tailoring, specifically with respect to CHF in primary care.

Methods/design

We describe the study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial to examine the effectiveness of tailoring a CHF implementation programme to general practices compared to a standardised way of delivering a programme. The study population will consist of 60 general practitioners (GPs) and the CHF patients they include. GPs are randomised in blocks of four, stratified according to practice size. With a tailored implementation programme GPs prioritise the issues that will form the bases of the support for the practice visits. These may comprise several issues, both educational and organizational.

The primary outcome measures are patient's experience of receiving structured primary care for CHF (PACIC, a questionnaire related to the Chronic Care Model), patients' health-related utilities (EQ-5D), and drugs prescriptions using the guideline adherence index. Patients being clustered in practices, multilevel regression analyses will be used to explore the effect of practice size and type of intervention programme. In addition we will examine both changes within groups and differences at follow-up between groups with respect to drug dosages and advice on lifestyle issues. Furthermore, in interviews the feasibility of the programme and goal attainment, organisational changes in CHF care, and formalised cooperation with other disciplines will be assessed.

Discussion

In the tailoring of the programme we will present the GPs a list with barriers; GPs will assess relevance and possibility to solve these barriers. The list is rigorously developed and tested in various projects. The factors for ordering the barriers are related to the innovation, the healthcare professional, the patient, and the context.

CHF patients do not form a homogeneous group. Subgroup analyses will be performed based on the distinction between systolic CHF and CHF with preserved left ventricular function (diastolic CHF).

Trial registration

ISRCTN: ISRCTN18812755

Case management for patients with chronic systolic heart failure in primary care: the HICMan exploratory randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic (systolic) heart failure (CHF) represents a clinical syndrome with high individual and societal burden of disease. Multifaceted interventions like case management are seen as promising ways of improving patient outcomes, but lack a robust evidence base, especially for primary care. The aim of the study was to explore the effectiveness of a new model of CHF case management conducted by doctors' assistants (DAs, equivalent to a nursing role) and supported by general practitioners (GPs).

METHODS

This patient-randomised controlled trial (phase II) included 31 DAs and employing GPs from 29 small office-based practices in Germany. Patients with CHF received either case management (n = 99) consisting of telephone monitoring and home visits or usual care (n = 100) for 12 months. We obtained clinical data, health care utilisation data, and patient-reported data on generic and disease-specific quality of life (QoL, SF-36 and KCCQ), CHF self-care (EHFScBS) and on quality of care (PACIC-5A). To compare between groups at follow-up, we performed analyses of covariance and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Baseline measurement showed high guideline adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and good patient self-care: Patients received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (or angiotensin-2 receptor antagonists) in 93.8% and 95%, and betablockers in 72.2% and 84%, and received both in combination in 68% and 80% of cases respectively. EHFScBS scores (SD) were 25.4 (8.4) and 25.0 (7.1). KCCQ overall summary scores (SD) were 65.4 (22.6) and 64.7 (22.7). We found low hospital admission and mortality rates. EHFScBS scores (-3.6 [-5.7;-1.6]) and PACIC and 5A scores (both 0.5, [0.3;0.7/0.8]) improved in favour of CM but QoL scores showed no significant group differences (Physical/Mental SF-36 summary scores/KCCQ-os [95%CI]: -0.3 [-3.0;2.5]/-0.1 [-3.4;3.1]/1.7 [-3.0;6.4]).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample, with little room for improvement regarding evidence-based pharmacotherapy and CHF self-care, case management showed no improved health outcomes or health care utilisation. However, case management significantly improved performance and key intermediate outcomes. Our study provides evidence for the feasibility of the case management model.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN30822978.

The experience of living with chronic heart failure: a narrative review of qualitative studies

Background

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is the leading cause of all hospitalisations and readmissions in older people, accounting for a large proportion of developed countries' national health care expenditure. CHF can severely affect people's quality of life by reducing their independence and ability to undertake certain activities of daily living, as well as affecting their psychosocial and economic capacity. This paper reports the findings of a systematic narrative review of qualitative studies concerning people's experience of living with CHF, aiming to develop a wide-ranging understanding of what is known about the patient experience.

Methods

We searched eight relevant electronic databases using the terms based on the diagnosis of 'chronic heart failure', 'heart failure' and 'congestive heart failure' and qualitative methods, with restrictions to the years 1990-May 2008. We also used snowballing, hand searching and the expert knowledge of the research team to ensure all relevant papers were included in the review. Of 65 papers collected less than half (n = 30) were found relevant for this review. These papers were subsequently summarised and entered into QSR NVivo7 for data management and analysis.

Results

The review has identified the most prominent impacts of CHF on a person's everyday life including social isolation, living in fear and losing a sense of control. It has also identified common strategies through which patients with CHF manage their illness such as sharing experiences and burdens with others and being flexible to changing circumstances.

Finally, there are multiple factors that commonly impact on patients' self care and self-management in the disease trajectory including knowledge, understanding and health service encounters. These health service encounters encompass access, continuity and quality of care, co-morbid conditions, and personal relationships.

Conclusions

The core and sub-concepts identified within this study provide health professionals, service providers, policy makers and educators with broad insights into common elements of people's experiences of CHF and potential options for improving their health and wellbeing. Future studies should focus on building a comprehensive picture of CHF through examination of differences between genders, and differences within age groups, socioeconomic groups and cultural groups.

What can improve chronic disease care?

Chronic disease care is a central part of geriatrics. The rise in chronic disease draws attention to the need to find better ways to deliver effective care. This essay examines the effectiveness of several strategies for providing better chronic disease care, reviewing the literature and relying on extant reviews whenever possible. The evidence of effectiveness is mixed; a few areas show promise. The case for cost-effectiveness is even less strong. New strategies may be indicated, including more-proactive monitoring of clinical courses and assessing patients' readiness to participate actively in their own care.

Community-based care for the specialized management of heart failure: an evidence-based analysis

In August 2008, the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) presented a vignette to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) on a proposed targeted health care delivery model for chronic care. The proposed model was defined as multidisciplinary, ambulatory, community-based care that bridged the gap between primary and tertiary care, and was intended for individuals with a chronic disease who were at risk of a hospital admission or emergency department visit. The goals of this care model were thought to include: the prevention of emergency department visits, a reduction in hospital admissions and re-admissions, facilitation of earlier hospital discharge, a reduction or delay in long-term care admissions, and an improvement in mortality and other disease-specific patient outcomes.OHTAC approved the development of an evidence-based assessment to determine the effectiveness of specialized community based care for the management of heart failure, Type 2 diabetes and chronic wounds.PLEASE VISIT THE MEDICAL ADVISORY SECRETARIAT WEB SITE AT: www.health.gov.on.ca/ohtas to review the following reports associated with the Specialized Multidisciplinary Community-Based care series.Specialized multidisciplinary community-based care series: a summary of evidence-based analysesCommunity-based care for the specialized management of heart failure: an evidence-based analysisCommunity-based care for chronic wound management: an evidence-based analysisPlease note that the evidence-based analysis of specialized community-based care for the management of diabetes titled: "Community-based care for the management of type 2 diabetes: an evidence-based analysis" has been published as part of the Diabetes Strategy Evidence Platform at this URL: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/ohtas/tech_diabetes_20091020.htmlPLEASE VISIT THE TORONTO HEALTH ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT COLLABORATIVE WEB SITE AT: http://theta.utoronto.ca/papers/MAS_CHF_Clinics_Report.pdf to review the following economic project associated with this series:Community-based Care for the specialized management of heart failure: a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this evidence-based analysis was to determine the effectiveness of specialized multidisciplinary care in the management of heart failure (HF).

CLINICAL NEED

TARGET POPULATION AND CONDITION HF is a progressive, chronic condition in which the heart becomes unable to sufficiently pump blood throughout the body. There are several risk factors for developing the condition including hypertension, diabetes, obesity, previous myocardial infarction, and valvular heart disease.(1) Based on data from a 2005 study of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), the prevalence of congestive heart failure in Canada is approximately 1% of the population over the age of 12.(2) This figure rises sharply after the age of 45, with prevalence reports ranging from 2.2% to 12%.(3) Extrapolating this to the Ontario population, an estimated 98,000 residents in Ontario are believed to have HF. Disease management programs are multidisciplinary approaches to care for chronic disease that coordinate comprehensive care strategies along the disease continuum and across healthcare delivery systems.(4) Evidence for the effectiveness of disease management programs for HF has been provided by seven systematic reviews completed between 2004 and 2007 (Table 1) with consistency of effect demonstrated across four main outcomes measures: all cause mortality and hospitalization, and heart-failure specific mortality and hospitalization. (4-10) However, while disease management programs are multidisciplinary by definition, the published evidence lacks consistency and clarity as to the exact nature of each program and usual care comparators are generally ill defined. Consequently, the effectiveness of multidisciplinary care for the management of persons with HF is still uncertain. Therefore, MAS has completed a systematic review of specialized, multidisciplinary, community-based care disease management programs compared to a well-defined usual care group for persons with HF.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

What is the effectiveness of specialized, multidisciplinary, community-based care (SMCCC) compared with usual care for persons with HF? LITERATURE SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive literature search was completed of electronic databases including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature. Bibliographic references of selected studies were also searched. After a review of the title and abstracts, relevant studies were obtained and the full reports evaluated. All studies meeting explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were retained. Where appropriate, a meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the pooled estimate of effect of specialized multidisciplinary community-based care for explicit outcomes. The quality of the body of evidence, defined as one or more relevant studies was determined using GRADE Working Group criteria. (11) INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trialSystematic review with meta analysisPopulation includes persons with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification 1-IV HFThe intervention includes a team consisting of a nurse and physician one of which is a specialist in HF management.The control group receives care by a single practitioner (e.g. primary care physician (PCP) or cardiologist)The intervention begins after discharge from the hospitalThe study reports 1-year outcomes

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

The intervention is delivered predominately through home-visitsStudies with mixed populations where discrete data for HF is not reported

OUTCOMES OF INTEREST

All cause mortalityAll cause hospitalizationHF specific mortalityHF specific hospitalizationAll cause duration of hospital stayHF specific duration of hospital stayEmergency room visitsQuality of Life

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

One large and seven small randomized controlled trials were obtained from the literature search. A meta-analysis was completed for four of the seven outcomes including: All cause mortalityHF-specific mortalityAll cause hospitalizationHF-specific hospitalization.Where the pooled analysis was associated with significant heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were completed using two primary categories: direct and indirect model of care; andtype of control group (PCP or cardiologist).The direct model of care was a clinic-based multidisciplinary HF program and the indirect model of care was a physician supervised, nurse-led telephonic HF program. All studies, except one, were completed in jurisdictions outside North America. (12-19) Similarly, all but one study had a sample size of less than 250. The mean age in the studies ranged from 65 to 77 years. Six of the studies(12;14-18) included populations with a NYHA classification of II-III. In two studies, the control treatment was a cardiologist (12;15) and two studies reported the inclusion of a dietitian, physiotherapist and psychologist as members of the multidisciplinary team (12;19). ALL CAUSE MORTALITY: Eight studies reported all cause mortality (number of persons) at 1 year follow-up. (12-19) When the results of all eight studies were pooled, there was a statistically significant RRR of 29% with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) of 38%). The results of the subgroup analyses indicated a significant RRR of 40% in all cause mortality when SMCCC is delivered through a direct team model (clinic) and a 35% RRR when SMCCC was compared with a primary care practitioner. HF-SPECIFIC MORTALITY: Three studies reported HF-specific mortality (number of persons) at 1 year follow-up. (15;18;19) When the results of these were pooled, there was an insignificant RRR of 42% with high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) of 60%). The GRADE quality of evidence is moderate for the pooled analysis of all studies. ALL CAUSE HOSPITALIZATION: Seven studies reported all cause hospitalization at 1-year follow-up (13-15;17-19). When pooled, their results showed a statistically insignificant 12% increase in hospitalizations in the SMCCC group with high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) of 81%). A significant RRR of 12% in all cause hospitalization in favour of the SMCCC care group was achieved when SMCCC was delivered using an indirect model (telephonic) with an associated (I(2) of 0%). The Grade quality of evidence was found to be low for the pooled analysis of all studies and moderate for the subgroup analysis of the indirect team care model. HF-SPECIFIC HOSPITALIZATION: Six studies reported HF-specific hospitalization at 1-year follow-up. (13-15;17;19) When pooled, the results of these studies showed an insignificant RRR of 14% with high statistical heterogeneity (I(2) of 60%); however, the quality of evidence for the pooled analysis of was low. DURATION OF HOSPITAL STAY: Seven studies reported duration of hospital stay, four in terms of mean duration of stay in days (14;16;17;19) and three in terms of total hospital bed days (12;13;18). Most studies reported all cause duration of hospital stay while two also reported HF-specific duration of hospital stay. These data were not amenable to meta-analyses as standard deviations were not provided in the reports. However, in general (and in all but one study) it appears that persons receiving SMCCC had shorter hospital stays, whether measured as mean days in hospital or total hospital bed days. EMERGENCY ROOM VISITS: Only one study reported emergency room visits. (14) This was presented as a composite of readmissions and ER visits, where the authors reported that 77% (59/76) of the SMCCC group and 84% (63/75) of the usual care group were either readmitted or had an ER visit within the 1 year of follow-up (P=0.029). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

What is the strength of evidence for heart failure disease-management programs?

Heart failure (HF) disease-management programs are increasingly common. However, some large and recent trials of programs have not reported positive findings. There have also been parallel recent advances in reporting standards and theory around complex nonpharmacological interventions. These developments compel reconsideration in this Viewpoint of how research into HF-management programs should be evaluated, the quality, specificity, and usefulness of this evidence, and the recommendations for future research. Addressing the main determinants of intervention effectiveness by using the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) approach and the recent CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement on nonpharmacological trials, we will argue that in both current trials and meta-analyses, interventions and comparisons are not sufficiently well described; that complex programs have been excessively oversimplified; and that potentially salient differences in programs, populations, and settings are not incorporated into analyses. In preference to more general meta-analyses of programs, adequate descriptions are first needed of populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes in past and future trials. This could be achieved via a systematic survey of study authors based on the CONSORT statement. These more detailed data on studies should be incorporated into future meta-analyses of comparable trials and used with other techniques such as patient-based outcomes data and meta-regression. Although trials and meta-analyses continue to have potential to generate useful evidence, a more specific evidence base is needed to support the development of effective programs for different populations and settings.

Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?

BACKGROUND TO THE DEBATE

The UK Medical Research Council defines complex interventions as those comprising "a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the interventions although the 'active ingredient' of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify." A typical example is specialist care on a stroke unit, which involves a wide range of health professionals delivering a variety of treatments. Michelle Campbell and colleagues have argued that there are "specific difficulties in defining, developing, documenting, and reproducing complex interventions that are subject to more variation than a drug". These difficulties are one of the reasons why it is challenging for researchers to systematically review complex interventions and synthesize data from separate studies. This PLoS Medicine Debate considers the challenges facing systematic reviewers and suggests several ways of addressing them.

Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a home-based intervention in patients with heart failure: the IC-DOM study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine whether a home-based intervention can reduce mortality and hospital readmissions and improve quality of life in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was carried out between January 2004 and October 2006. In total, 283 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of heart failure were randomly allocated to a home-based intervention (intervention group) or usual care (control group). The primary end-point was the combination of all-cause mortality and hospital readmission for worsening heart failure at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The primary end-point was observed in 41.7% of patients in the intervention group and in 54.3% in the control group. The hazard ratio was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.99). Taking significant clinical variables into account slightly reduced the hazard ratio to 0.62 (95% CI 0.50-0.87). At the end of the study, the quality of life of patients in the intervention group was better than in the control group (18.57 vs. 31.11; P< .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A home-based intervention for patients with heart failure reduced the aggregate of mortality and hospital readmissions and improved quality of life.

Telemonitoring or structured telephone support programmes for patients with chronic heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether remote monitoring (structured telephone support or telemonitoring) without regular clinic or home visits improves outcomes for patients with chronic heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

15 electronic databases, hand searches of previous studies, and contact with authors and experts.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators independently screened the results.

REVIEW METHODS

Published randomised controlled trials comparing remote monitoring programmes with usual care in patients with chronic heart failure managed within the community.

RESULTS

14 randomised controlled trials (4264 patients) of remote monitoring met the inclusion criteria: four evaluated telemonitoring, nine evaluated structured telephone support, and one evaluated both. Remote monitoring programmes reduced the rates of admission to hospital for chronic heart failure by 21% (95% confidence interval 11% to 31%) and all cause mortality by 20% (8% to 31%); of the six trials evaluating health related quality of life three reported significant benefits with remote monitoring, and of the four studies examining healthcare costs with structured telephone support three reported reduced cost and one no effect.

CONCLUSION

Programmes for chronic heart failure that include remote monitoring have a positive effect on clinical outcomes in community dwelling patients with chronic heart failure.