Differences in provider approach to initiating and titrating guideline directed medical therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Despite the strong evidence supporting guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), prescription rates in clinical practice are still lacking.

METHODS

A survey containing 20 clinical vignettes of patients with HFrEF was answered by a national sample of 127 cardiologists and 68 internal/family medicine physicians. Each vignette had 4-5 options for adjusting GDMT and the option to make no medication changes. Survey respondents could only select one option. For analysis, responses were dichotomized to the answer of interest.

RESULTS

Cardiologists were more likely to make GDMT changes than general medicine physicians (91.8% vs. 82.0%; OR 1.84 [1.07-3.19]; p = 0.020). Cardiologists were more likely to initiate beta-blockers (46.3% vs. 32.0%; OR 2.38 [1.18-4.81], p = 0.016), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) (63.8% vs. 48.1%; OR 1.76 [1.01-3.09], p = 0.047), and hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate (HYD/ISDN) (38.2% vs. 23.7%; OR 2.47 [1.48-4.12], p < 0.001) compared to general medicine physicians. No differences were found in initiating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEi/ARBs), initiating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), sodium-glucose transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, digoxin, or ivabradine.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate cardiologists were more likely to adjust GDMT than general medicine physicians. Future focus on improving GDMT prescribing should target providers other than cardiologists to improve care in patients with HFrEF.

Chronic care for heart failure patients: Who to refer back to the general practitioner?-Experiences of the Dutch integrated heart failure care model

OBJECTIVE

The number of patients with heart failure (HF) and corresponding burden of the healthcare system will increase significantly. The Dutch integrated model, 'Transmural care of HF Patients' was based on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines and initiated to manage the increasing prevalence of HF patients in primary and secondary care and stimulate integrated care. It is unknown how many HF patients are eligible for back-referral to general practitioners (GPs), which is important information for the management of chronic HF care. This study aims to evaluate clinical practice of patients for whom chronic HF care can be referred from the cardiologist to the GP based on the aforementioned chronic HF care model.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective case record-based study was conducted, which included all chronic HF patients registered in the cardiology information systems of two different hospitals. Subsequently, 200 patients were randomly selected for evaluation. The following patients were considered eligible for referral to the GP: 1/Stable HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 2/Stable HF patients with a recovered LVEF and 3/Stable HF patients with a preserved LVEF, 4/HF, palliative setting.

RESULTS

Of the 200 patients, 17% was considered eligible for referral to the GP. This group consisted of 5% patients with a reduced LVEF, 10.5% patients with recovered LVEF and 1.5% patients with a preserved LVEF. Main indicators for HF care by cardiologists were active cardiac disease other than HF (39.5%), recent admission for HF (29.5%) or a recent adjustment in HF medication (7.5%).

CONCLUSION

Applying the chronic HF care model of the 'Transmural care of HF patients' and the ESC-guidelines, results in an important opportunity to further optimise HF integrated care and to deal with the increasing number of HF patients referred to the hospital.

The Impact of Specialised Heart Failure Outpatient Care on the Long-Term Application of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy and on Prognosis in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

(1) Background: Besides the use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), multidisciplinary heart failure (HF) outpatient care (HFOC) is of strategic importance in HFrEF. (2) Methods: Data from 257 hospitalised HFrEF patients between 2019 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Application and target doses of GDMT were compared between HFOC and non-HFOC patients at discharge and at 1 year. 1-year all-cause mortality (ACM) and rehospitalisation (ACH) rates were compared using the Cox proportional hazard model. The effect of HFOC on GDMT and on prognosis after propensity score matching (PSM) of 168 patients and the independent predictors of 1-year ACM and ACH were also evaluated. (3) Results: At 1 year, the application of RASi, MRA and triple therapy (TT: RASi + βB + MRA) was higher (p < 0.05) in the HFOC group, as was the proportion of target doses of ARNI, βB, MRA and TT. After PSM, the composite of 1-year ACM or ACH was more favourable with HFOC (propensity-adjusted HR = 0.625, 95% CI = 0.401-0.974, p = 0.038). Independent predictors of 1-year ACM were age, systolic blood pressure, application of TT and HFOC, while 1-year ACH was influenced by the application of TT. (4) Conclusions: HFOC may positively impact GDMT use and prognosis in HFrEF even within the first year of its initiation.

Experiences of Heart Failure and the Treatment Journey: A Mixed-Methods Study Among Patients with Heart Failure in Sweden

Purpose

Qualitative studies that highlight the patient perspective of heart failure (HF) and its impact on the lives of patients are limited. Our study objective was to describe the patient's perspective on HF, including the diagnosis, treatment journey and healthcare interactions, and how HF impacts patients' lives and specifically their health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and work capacity.

Patients and Methods

This cross-sectional, non-interventional, mixed-methods patient experience study comprised: (i) a quantitative online survey with study-specific questions and assessments of HRQoL and work impairment among 101 patients with HF in Sweden and (ii) 35 qualitative interviews to gain in-depth understanding of the patients' experiences.

Results

Patients were found to experience a highly symptomatic and detrimental impact of HF on their HRQoL and work capacity. Fatigue was the most frequently reported symptom, and it was detrimental to all areas of patients' lives limiting them mentally, socially, and physically. Two-thirds of patients were not aware of the type of HF they had, one-third did not check their body weight regularly, and around half did not increase their physical exercise as recommended by both guidelines and healthcare practitioners. Patients preferred specialist to primary care, desired greater access to healthcare, and continuity in whom they interact with in primary care.

Conclusion

Patients with HF experience a highly symptomatic burden that affects them physically, mentally, and socially. Our study highlights a major gap in patients' knowledge about HF and HF-related healthcare. These results demonstrate a challenge for the Swedish healthcare system particularly as regards providing patients with continuity, accessibility, and proximity to primary care.

Specialized heart failure clinics versus primary care: Extended registry-based follow-up of the NorthStar trial

BACKGROUND

Whether continued follow-up in specialized heart failure (HF) clinics after optimization of guideline-directed therapy improves long-term outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

921 medically optimized HFrEF patients enrolled in the NorthStar study were randomly assigned to follow up in a specialized HF clinic or primary care and followed for 10 years using Danish nationwide registries. The primary outcome was a composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. We further assessed the 5-year adherence to prescribed neurohormonal blockade in 5-year survivors. At enrollment, the median age was 69 years, 24,7% were females, and the median NT-proBNP was 1139 pg/ml. During a median follow-up time of 4.1 (Q1-Q3 1.5-10.0) years, the primary outcome occurred in 321 patients (69.8%) randomized to follow-up in specialized HF clinics and 325 patients (70.5%) randomized to follow-up in primary care. The rate of the primary outcome, its individual components, and all-cause death did not differ between groups (primary outcome, hazard ratio 0.96 [95% CI, 0.82-1.12]; cardiovascular death, 1.00 [0.81-1.24]; HF hospitalization, 0.97 [0.82-1.14]; all-cause death, 1.00 [0.83-1.20]). In 5-year survivors (N = 660), the 5-year adherence did not differ between groups for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (p = 0.78), beta-blockers (p = 0.74), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (p = 0.47).

CONCLUSIONS

HFrEF patients on optimal medical therapy did not benefit from continued follow-up in a specialized HF clinic after initial optimization. Development and implementation of new monitoring strategies are needed.

Clinical course and therapy optimization of patients after discharge from a specialized heart failure clinic

Aim: We aimed to describe the clinical course of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after discharge from the heart failure clinics (HFC). Patients & methods: We reviewed the hospital's records of 610 patients that were discharged between 2013 and 2018 from the HFC at a single centre. Patients with no recurrent contact to ambulatory cardiac care were invited to an echocardiographic assessment. Results: Of the survivors, 72% were re-referred after discharge. Nearly 30% of the patients with no recurrent contact with ambulatory cardiac care had persistent HFrEF and further therapeutical optimizations were indicated in half of them. Conclusion: This highlights the importance to identify high-risk patients that would benefit from extended management in the HFC.

Use of regional transmural agreements to support the right care in the right place for patients with chronic heart failure-a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (CHF) poses a major challenge for healthcare systems. As these patients' needs vary over time in intensity and complexity, the coordination of care between primary and secondary care is critical for them to receive the right care in the right place. To support the continuum of care needed, Dutch regional transmural agreements (RTAs) between healthcare providers have been developed. However, little is known about how the stakeholders have experienced the development and use of these RTAs. The aim of this study was to gain insight into how stakeholders have experienced the development and use of RTAs for CHF and explore which factors affected this.

METHODS

We interviewed 25 stakeholders from 9 Dutch regions based on the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations framework. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed through open thematic coding.

RESULTS

In most cases, the RTA development was considered relatively easy. However, the participants noted that sustainable use of the RTAs faced different complexities and influencing factors. These barriers concerned the following themes: education of primary care providers, referral process, patients' willingness, relationships between healthcare providers, reimbursement by health insurance companies, electronic health record (EHR) systems and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Some complexities, such as reimbursement and EHR systems, are likely to benefit from specialised support or a national approach. On a regional level, interregional learning can improve stakeholders' experiences. Future research should focus on quantitative effects of RTAs on outcomes and potential financing models for projects that aim to transition care from one setting to another.

Optimal effectiveness of heart failure management - an umbrella review of meta-analyses examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce (re)hospitalizations in heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major health concern, which accounts for 1-2% of all hospital admissions. Nevertheless, there remains a knowledge gap concerning which interventions contribute to effective prevention of HF (re)hospitalization. Therefore, this umbrella review aims to systematically review meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. An electronic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, Cochrane Reviews, CINAHL, and Medline to identify eligible studies published in the English language in the past 10 years. Primarily, to synthesize the meta-analyzed data, a best-evidence synthesis was used in which meta-analyses were classified based on level of validity. Secondarily, all unique RCTS were extracted from the meta-analyses and examined. A total of 44 meta-analyses were included which encompassed 186 unique RCTs. Strong or moderate evidence suggested that catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac rehabilitation, telemonitoring, and RAAS inhibitors could reduce (re)hospitalization. Additionally, limited evidence suggested that multidisciplinary clinic or self-management promotion programs, beta-blockers, statins, and mitral valve therapy could reduce HF hospitalization. No, or conflicting evidence was found for the effects of cell therapy or anticoagulation. This umbrella review highlights different levels of evidence regarding the effectiveness of several interventions in reducing HF-related (re)hospitalization in HFrEF patients. It could guide future guideline development in optimizing care pathways for heart failure patients.

Introduction of a new scoring tool to identify clinically stable heart failure patients

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) poses a burden on specialist care, making referral of clinically stable HF patients to primary care a desirable goal. However, a structured approach to guide patient referral is lacking.

Methods

The Maastricht Instability Score—Heart Failure (MIS-HF) questionnaire was developed to objectively stratify the clinical status of HF patients: patients with a low MIS-HF (0–2 points, indicating a stable clinical condition) were considered for treatment in primary care, whereas high scores (> 2 points) indicated the need for specialised care. The MIS-HF was evaluated in 637 consecutive HF patients presenting between 2015 and 2018 at Maastricht University Medical Centre.

Results

Of the 637 patients, 329 (52%) had a low score and 205 of these 329 (62%) patients were referred to primary care. The remaining 124 (38%) patients remained in secondary care. Of the 308 (48%) patients with a high score (> 2 points), 265 (86%) remained in secondary care and 41 (14%) were referred to primary care. The primary composite endpoint (mortality, cardiac hospital admissions) occurred more frequently in patients with a high compared to those with a low MIS-HF after 1 year of follow-up (29.2% vs 10.9%; odds ratio (OR) 3.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.20–5.14). No significant difference in the composite endpoint (9.8% vs 12.9%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36–1.47) was found between patients with a low MIS-HF treated in primary versus secondary care.

Conclusion

The MIS-HF questionnaire may improve referral policies, as it helps to identify HF patients that can safely be referred to primary care.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-021-01654-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Heart failure with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across health care settings: an observational study

AIMS

This study aimed to assess the sex-specific distribution of heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction across three health care settings.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this descriptive observational study, we retrieved the distribution of HF types [with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] for men and women between 65 and 79 years of age in three health care settings from a single country: (i) patients with screening-detected HF in the high-risk community (i.e. those with shortness of breath, frailty, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) from four screening studies, (ii) patients with confirmed HF from primary care derived from a single observational study, and (iii) patients with confirmed HF from outpatient cardiology clinics participating in a registry. Among 1407 patients from the high-risk community, 288 had screen-detected HF (15% HFrEF, 12% HFmrEF, 74% HFpEF), and 51% of the screen-detected HF patients were women. In both women (82%) and men (65%), HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type. In the routine general practice population (30 practices, 70 000 individuals), among the 160 confirmed HF cases, 35% had HFrEF, 23% HFmrEF, and 43% HFpEF, and in total, 43% were women. In women, HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type (52%), while in men, this was HFrEF (41%). In outpatient cardiology clinics (n = 34), of the 4742 HF patients (66% HFrEF, 15% HFmrEF, 20% HFpEF), 36% were women. In both women (56%) and men (71%), HFrEF was the most prevalent HF type.

CONCLUSIONS

Both HF types and sex distribution vary considerably in HF patients of 65-79 years of age among health care settings. From the high-risk community through to general practice to the cardiology outpatient setting, there is a shift in HF type from HFpEF to HFrEF and a decrease in the proportion of HF patients that are women.

Hierarchical management of chronic heart failure: a perspective based on the latent structure of comorbidities

AIMS

Chronic heart failure (CHF) has an increasing burden of comorbidities, which affect clinical outcomes. Few studies have focused on the clustering and hierarchical management of patients with CHF based on comorbidity. This study aimed to explore the cluster model of CHF patients based on comorbidities and to verify their relationship with clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic health records of patients hospitalized with CHF from January 2014 to April 2019 were collected, and 12 common comorbidities were included in the latent class analysis. The Fruchterman-Reingold layout was used to draw the comorbidity network, and analysis of variance was used to compare the weighted degrees among them. The incidence of clinical outcomes among different clusters was presented on Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test, and the hazard ratio was calculated using the Cox proportional risk model. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to the left ventricular ejection fraction. Four different clinical clusters from 4063 total patients were identified: metabolic, ischaemic, high comorbidity burden, and elderly-atrial fibrillation. Compared with the metabolic cluster, patients in the high comorbidity burden cluster had the highest adjusted risk of combined outcome and all-cause mortality {1.67 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.40-1.99] and 2.87 [95% CI, 2.17-3.81], respectively}, followed by the elderly-atrial fibrillation and ischaemic clusters. The adjusted readmission risk of patients with ischaemic, high comorbidity burden, and elderly-atrial fibrillation clusters were 1.35 (95% CI, 1.08-1.68), 1.39 (95% CI, 1.13-1.72), and 1.42 (95% CI, 1.14-1.77), respectively. The comorbidity network analysis found that patients in the high comorbidity burden cluster had more and higher comorbidity correlations than those in other clusters. Sensitivity analysis revealed that patients in the high comorbidity burden cluster had the highest risk of combined outcome and all-cause mortality (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The difference in adverse outcomes among clusters confirmed the heterogeneity of CHF and the importance of hierarchical management. This study can provide a basis for personalized treatment and management of patients with CHF, and provide a new perspective for clinical decision making.

Medication adherence in cardiovascular medicine

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally. While pharmacological advancements have improved the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease, non-adherence to prescribed treatment remains a significant barrier to improved patient outcomes. A variety of strategies to improve medication adherence have been tested in clinical trials, and include the following categories: improving patient education, implementing medication reminders, testing cognitive behavioral interventions, reducing medication costs, utilizing healthcare team members, and streamlining medication dosing regimens. In this review, we describe specific trials within each of these categories and highlight the impact of each on medication adherence. We also examine ongoing trials and future lines of inquiry for improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Aims

To assess whether a single training session for general practitioners (GPs) improves the evidence-based drug treatment of heart failure (HF) patients, especially of those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

A cluster randomised controlled trial was performed for which patients with established HF were eligible. Primary care practices (PCPs) were randomised to care-as-usual or to the intervention group in which GPs received a half-day training session on HF management. Changes in HF medication, health status, hospitalisation and survival were compared between the two groups. Fifteen PCPs with 200 HF patients were randomised to the intervention group and 15 PCPs with 198 HF patients to the control group. Mean age was 76.9 (SD 10.8) years; 52.5% were female. On average, the patients had been diagnosed with HF 3.0 (SD 3.0) years previously. In total, 204 had HFrEF and 194 HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In participants with HFrEF, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers decreased in 6 months in both groups [5.2%; (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–10.0)] and 5.6% (95% CI 2.8–13.4)], respectively [baseline-corrected odds ratio (OR) 1.07 (95% CI 0.55–2.08)], while beta-blocker use increased in both groups by 5.2% (95% CI 2.0–10.0) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.2–6.3), respectively [baseline-corrected OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42–1.61)]. For health status, hospitalisations or survival after 12–28 months there were no significant differences between the two groups, also not when separately analysed for HFrEF and HFpEF.

Conclusion

A half-day training session for GPs does not improve drug treatment of HF in patients with established HF.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-020-01487-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cancer Mortality in Trials of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The burden of cancer in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is apparently growing. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may help understanding this observation, since they span decades of heart failure treatment.

Methods and Results

We assessed cancer, cardiovascular, and total mortality in phase 3 heart failure RCTs involving ≥90% individuals with left ventricular ejection fraction <45%, who were not acutely decompensated and did not represent specific patient subsets. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of each type of death for the control and treatment arms were calculated using a random‐effects model. Temporal trends and the impact of patient and RCT characteristics on mortality outcomes were evaluated by meta‐regression analysis. Cancer mortality was reported for 15 (25%) of 61 RCTs, including 33 709 subjects, and accounted for 6% to 14% of all deaths and 17% to 67% of noncardiovascular deaths. Cancer mortality rate was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.46–0.71) per 100 patient‐years without temporal trend (P=0.35). Cardiovascular (P=0.001) and total (P=0.001) mortality rates instead decreased over time. Moreover, cancer mortality was not influenced by treatment (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92–1.28), unlike cardiovascular (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.79–0.98) and all‐cause (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84–0.99) mortality. Meta‐regression did not reveal significant sources of heterogeneity. Possible reasons for excluding patients with malignancy overlapped among RCTs with and without published cancer mortality, and malignancy was an exclusion criterion only for 4 (8.7%) of the RCTs not reporting cancer mortality.

Conclusions

Cancer is a major, yet overlooked cause of noncardiovascular death in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, which has become more prominent with cardiovascular mortality decline.

Noncardiac comorbidity clustering in heart failure: an overlooked aspect with potential therapeutic door

Heart failure is associated with a range of comorbidities that have the potential to impair both quality of life and clinical outcome. Unfortunately, noncardiac diseases are underrepresented in large randomized clinical trials, and their management remains poorly understood. In clinical practice, the prevalence of comorbidities in heart failure is high. Although the prognostic impact of comorbidities is well known, their prevalence and impact in specific heart failure settings have been overlooked. Many studies have described specific single noncardiac conditions, but few have examined their overall burden and grading in patients with multiple comorbidities. The risk of comorbidities in patients with heart failure rises with more advanced disease, older age, and increased frailty-three conditions that are poorly represented in clinical trials. The pathogenic links between comorbidities and heart failure involve many pathways and include neurohormonal overdrive, inflammatory activation, oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction. Such interactions may worsen prognoses, but details of these relationships are still under investigation. We propose a shift from cardiac-focused care to a more systemic approach that considers all noncardiac diseases and related medications. Some new drugs class such as ARNI or SGLT2 inhibitors could change prognosis by acting directly or indirectly on metabolic disorders and related vascular consequences.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

How to develop a national heart failure clinics network: a consensus document of the Hellenic Heart Failure Association

Heart failure (HF) is rapidly growing, conferring considerable mortality, morbidity, and costs. Dedicated HF clinics improve patient outcomes, and the development of a national HF clinics network aims at addressing this need at national level. Such a network should respect the existing health care infrastructures, and according to the capacities of hosting facilities, it can be organized into three levels. Establishing the continuous communication and interaction among the components of the network is crucial, while supportive actions that can enhance its efficiency include involvement of multidisciplinary health care professionals, use of structured HF‐specific documents, such as discharge notes, patient information leaflets, and patient booklets, and implementation of an HF‐specific electronic health care record and database platform.

Trajectory of self-care behaviour in patients with heart failure: the impact on clinical outcomes and influencing factors

BACKGROUND

Patients' self-care behaviour is still suboptimal in many heart failure (HF) patients and underlying mechanisms on how to improve self-care need to be studied.

AIMS

(1) To describe the trajectory of patients' self-care behaviour over 1 year, (2) to clarify the relationship between the trajectory of self-care and clinical outcomes, and (3) to identify factors related to changes in self-care behaviour.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of the COACH-2 study, 167 HF patients (mean age 73 years) were included. Self-care behaviour was assessed at baseline and after 12 months using the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour scale. The threshold score of ⩾70 was used to define good self-care behaviour.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 21% had persistent poor self-care behaviour, and 27% decreased from good to poor. Self-care improved from poor to good in 10%; 41% had a good self-care during both measurements. Patients who improved self-care had significantly higher perceived control than those with persistently good self-care at baseline. Patients who decreased their self-care had more all-cause hospitalisations (35%) and cardiovascular hospitalisations (26%) than patients with persistently good self-care (2.9%, p < 0.05). The prevalence of depression increased at 12 months in both patients having persistent poor self-care (0% to 21%) and decreasing self-care (4.4% to 22%, both p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Perceived control is a positive factor to improve self-care, and a decrease in self-care is related to worse outcomes. Interventions to reduce psychological distress combined with self-care support could have a beneficial impact on patients decreasing or persistently poor self-care behaviour.

Protocol-based follow-up program for heart failure patients: Impact on prognosis and quality of life

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure is associated with high rates of readmission and mortality, and there is a need for measures to improve outcomes. This study aims to assess the impact of the implementation of a protocol-based follow-up program for heart failure patients on readmission and mortality rates and quality of life.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study was performed, with a prospective registry of 50 consecutive patients discharged after hospitalization for acute heart failure. The study group was followed by a cardiologist at days 7-10 and the first, third, sixth and 12th month after discharge, with predefined procedures. The control group consisted of patients hospitalized for heart failure prior to implementation of the program and followed on a routine basis.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding mean age (67.1±11.2 vs. 65.8±13.4 years, p=0.5), NYHA functional class (p=0.37), or median left ventricular ejection fraction (27% [19.8-35.3] vs. 29% [23.5-40]; p=0.23) at discharge. Mean follow-up after discharge was similar (11±5.3 vs. 10.9±5.5 months, p=0.81). The protocol-based follow-up program was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause readmission (26% vs. 60%, p=0.003), heart failure readmission (16% vs. 36%, p=0.032), and mortality (4% vs. 20%, p=0.044). In the study group there was a significant improvement in all quality of life measures (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

A protocol-based follow-up program for patients with heart failure led to a significant reduction in readmission and mortality rates, and was associated with better quality of life.

Heart Failure Integrated Care Project: overcoming barriers encountered by primary health care providers in heart failure management

ObjectiveHeart failure (HF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A significant proportion of HF patients will have repeated hospital presentations. Effective integration between general practice and existing HF management programs may address some of the challenges in optimising care for this complex patient population. The Heart Failure Integrated Care Project (HFICP) investigated the barriers encountered by primary healthcare providers in providing care to patients with HF in the community. MethodsFive general practices in the St George and Sutherland regions (NSW, Australia) that employed practice nurses (PNs) were enrolled in the project. Participants responded to a printed survey that asked about their perceived role in the management of HF patients and their current knowledge and confidence in managing this condition. Participants also took part in a focus group meeting and were asked to identify barriers to improving HF patient management in general practice, and to offer suggestions about how the project could assist them to overcome those barriers. ResultsBarriers to effective delivery of HF management in general practice included clinical factors (consultation time limitations, underutilisation of patient management systems, identifying patients with HF, lack of patient self-care materials), professional factors (suboptimal hospital discharge summary letters, underutilisation of PNs), organisation factors (difficulties in communication with hospital staff, lack of education regarding HF management) and system issues (no Medicare rebate for B-type natriuretic peptide testing, insufficient Medicare rebate for using PN in chronic disease management). ConclusionsThe HFICP identified several barriers to improving integrated management for HF patients in the Australian setting. These findings provide important insights into how an HF integrated care model can be implemented to strengthen the working relationship between hospitals and primary care providers in delivering better care to HF patients. What is known about the topic?Multidisciplinary HF programs are heterogeneous in their structures, they have low patient participation rates and a significant proportion of HF patients have further presentations to hospital with HF. Integrating the care of HF patients into the primary care system following hospital admission remains challenging. What does this paper add?This paper identified several factors that hinder the effective delivery of care by primary care providers to patients with HF. What are the implications for practitioners?The findings provide important insights into how an HF integrated care model can be implemented to strengthen the working relationship between tertiary health facilities and primary care providers in delivering better care to HF patients.

[Stability of chronic heart failure from the position of a doctor and a patient: in search of contact points]

Actuality. The results of the EPOCH study showed that in 16 years in the Russian Federation the number of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) of I-IV FC increased significantly. The main objectives of the treatment of CHF are the stabilization of the patient's condition and the reduction of the risks of cardiovascular mortality, decompensation and repeated hospitalizations for heart failure. But a single concept of "stable" CHF does not exist either in Russian or in foreign recommendations.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how ofen the subjective assessment of a doctor regarding the stability of a patient with CHF coincides with the subjective opinion of the patient with CHF regarding the stability of his condition; and to identify those parametrs that have a leading influence on the assessment of the stability of the state from the point of view of the physician and the patient.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data collection was carried out in the form of interviews among general practitioners and cardiologists in outpatient clinics (OC) of Nizhny Novgorod, which were randomly selected by the method of blind envelopes. In parallel, a survey was conducted of patients with CHF who applied for outpatient medical care about this syndrome to this OC, which the doctors were not informed about, because patient interviews were conducted after the end of outpatient admission in a separate room. Answers of doctors about a patient with CHF were compared with the answers of the corresponding patient; for this, a single code was assigned to both questionnaires. The study included 211 patients with CHF of any etiology older than 18 years. The study involved 25 doctors. The study was conducted from 11/01/17 to 11/30/17.

RESULTS

Analysis of the data suggests that the doctor is more likely to consider the patient more stable in cases when the patient notes a decrease in the severity of shortness of breath, weakness and does not detect edema, while the fact of therapy with loop diuretics (LD) or an increase in them did not affect assessment of stability from the point of view of the doctor. From the point of view of the patient, the absence of the first three signs also testifies to the stability of the condition, however, unlike doctors, patients more often (p &lt;0.001) considered themselves unstable in those cases when they needed LD therapy or an increase in LD dose. A logit regression analysis and ROC analysis based on selected signs and symptoms of CHF confirmed that a model that combines questions about persistent weakness and edema is best suited to predict the patient's subjective assessment of patient's stability from a doctor's point of view (61.8% of the results can be correctly predicted), and at the cutoff threshold of 0.5, it has the highest sensitivity of 64.9%. To predict the subjective assessment of stability in relation to the patient, the optimal model turned out to be the one that includes answers to the questions of "shortness of breath", "weakness" and "intake of loop diuretics", which allows to predict 66.7% of the results correctly at the cut‑off threshold 0, 5 has a better balance of sensitivity and specificity (54.9 and 78.6, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Reducing the severity of dyspnea, weakness and lack of edema of the lower extremities are important signs of the stability of the condition, both in the opinion of the doctor and in the opinion of the patient. Unlike the doctor, the patient is more likely to be classified as unstable in those cases when he is forced to receive therapy with loop diuretics at the outpatient stage or to increase their dose. The model for assessing the stability of a patient with CHF from the point of view of a physician more often allows one to confirm the patient's stable condition, while the model used by patients more often allows to identify patient instability and worsening of the course of CHF.

Developing a disease management program for the improvement of heart failure outcomes: the do's and the don'ts

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure is a highly prevalent condition affecting approximately 2% of people worldwide. Heart failure disease management programs (DMP) have shown a reduction in mortality and reduced hospitalization and are an established part of clinical guidelines; however, their presence is not widespread. Focusing on the application of proven therapies, patient education, diagnosis with work up of cause and easy access for clinical deterioration should be fundamental to the structure of the DMP. Multidisciplinary team care with early and timely recognition of potentially critical patients is essential, along with the inclusion of patients diagnosed in hospital as well as the community. Areas covered: The fundamental structure of a DMP along with the current gaps in evidence is outlined. Current challenges with the heart failure condition along with the current best evidence are covered. Articles were searched using MEDLINE containing the keywords; Chronic Heart Failure, Disease Management Program. We have also provided clinical opinion. Expert opinion: A multidisciplinary approach to disease management programs is essential to providing adequate care to patients. DMPs are an established part of current guidelines and should be a benchmark of treatment. Future resources should be focused on identifying patients at risk and early prevention.

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.

Introducing nurse-led heart failure clinics in Swedish primary care settings

AIM

According to clinical guidelines, it is recommended that patients with heart failure (HF) receive structured multidisciplinary care at nurse-led HF clinics in order to optimise treatment and avoid preventable readmissions. Today, there are HF clinics with specialist-trained nurses at almost all Swedish hospitals, but HF clinics remain scarce in primary care (PC). The aim of this study was two-fold: firstly, to evaluate the effects of systematically implementing nurse-led HF clinics in PC settings with regard to hospital healthcare utilisation and evidence-based HF treatment, and secondly to explore patients' experiences of HF clinics in PC.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study had a pre-post design. Annual measurement were done between 2010-2017 regarding in-hospital healthcare consumption and medical treatment. Data from 2011-2017 after the implementation of HF clinics in PC in one county council Sweden were compared with baseline data collected before the implementation in 2010. The implementation of HF clinics in PC significantly reduced the number of HF-related hospital admissions by 27% (P < 0.001), HF hospital days by 27.3% (P < 0.001) and HF emergency room visits by 24% (P < 0.001). Further, patients were to a higher extent medically treated according to guidelines and satisfied with the care they received at the PC HF clinic.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led HF clinics in PC seem to be effective in reducing the need for in-hospital care and provide high quality person-centred care.

Continuity and utilization of health and community care in elderly patients with heart failure before and after hospitalization

BACKGROUND

The period after hospitalization due to deteriorated heart failure (HF) is characterized as a time of high generalized risk. The transition from hospital to home is often problematic due to insufficient coordination of care, leading to a fragmentation of care rather than a seamless continuum of care. The aim was to describe health and community care utilization prior to and 30 days after hospitalization, and the continuity of care in patients hospitalized due to de novo or deteriorated HF from the patients' perspective and from a medical chart review.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study with consecutive inclusion of patients hospitalized at a county hospital in Sweden due to deteriorated HF during 2014. Data were collected by structured telephone interviews and medical chart review and analyzed with the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and Chi square. A P value of 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients were included in the study, mean age 82.5 (±6.8) and 49% were women. Half of the patients had not visited any health care facility during the month prior to the index hospital admission, and 79% of the patients visited the emergency room (ER) without a referral. Among these elderly patients, a total of 40% received assistance at home prior to hospitalization and 52% after discharge. A total of 86% received written discharge information, one third felt insecure after hospitalization and lacked knowledge of which health care provider to consult with and contact in the event of deterioration or complications. Health care utilization increased significantly after hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Most patients had not visited any health care facility within 30 days before hospitalization. Health care utilization increased significantly after hospitalization. Flaws in the continuity of care were found; even though most patients received written information at discharge, one third of the patients lacked knowledge about which health care provider to contact in the event of deterioration and felt insecure at home after discharge.

A tool for assessment of heart failure prescribing quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) guidelines aim to standardise patient care. Internationally, prescribing practice in HF may deviate from guidelines and so a standardised tool is required to assess prescribing quality. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to identify a quantitative tool for measuring adherence to HF guidelines and its clinical implications.

METHODS

Eleven electronic databases were searched to include studies reporting a comprehensive tool for measuring adherence to prescribing guidelines in HF patients aged ≥18 years. Qualitative studies or studies measuring prescription rates alone were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness Checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 2455 studies were identified. Sixteen eligible full-text articles were included (n = 14 354 patients, mean age 69 ± 8 y). The Guideline Adherence Index (GAI), and its modified versions, was the most frequently cited tool (n = 13). Other tools identified were the Individualised Reconciled Evidence Recommendations, the Composite Heart Failure Performance, and the Heart Failure Scale. The meta-analysis included the GAI studies of good to high quality. The average GAI-3 was 62%. Compared to low GAI, high GAI patients had lower mortality rate (7.6% vs 33.9%) and lower rehospitalisation rates (23.5% vs 24.5%); both P ≤ .05. High GAI was associated with reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.51) and rehospitalisation (hazard ratio = 0.64, 95% confidence interval, 0.41-1.00). No tool was used to improve prescribing quality.

CONCLUSION

The GAI is the most frequently used tool to assess guideline adherence in HF. High GAI is associated with improved HF outcomes.

The role of hospitals in bridging the care continuum: a systematic review of coordination of care and follow-up for adults with chronic conditions

Background

Multiple studies have investigated the outcome of integrated care programs for chronically ill patients. However, few studies have addressed the specific role hospitals can play in the downstream collaboration for chronic disease management. Our objective here is to provide a comprehensive overview of the role of the hospitals by synthesizing the advantages and disadvantages of hospital interference in the chronic discourse for chronically ill patients found in published empirical studies.

Method

Systematic literature review. Two reviewers independently investigated relevant studies using a standardized search strategy.

Results

Thirty-two articles were included in the systematic review. Overall, the quality of the included studies is high. Four important themes were identified: the impact of transitional care interventions initiated from the hospital’s side, the role of specialized care settings, the comparison of inpatient and outpatient care, and the effect of chronic care coordination on the experience of patients.

Conclusion

Our results show that hospitals can play an important role in transitional care interventions and the coordination of chronic care with better outcomes for the patients by taking a leading role in integrated care programs. Above that, the patient experiences are positively influenced by the coordinating role of a specialist. Specialized care settings, as components of the hospital, facilitate the coordination of the care processes. In the future, specialized care centers and primary care could play a more extensive role in care for chronic patients by collaborating.

What the General Practitioner Needs to Know About Their Chronic Heart Failure Patient

In this article we highlight what general practitioners (GPs) need to know about heart failure (HF). We pay attention to its definition, diagnosis - with risks of under- and over-diagnosis - and the role natriuretic peptides, electrocardiography, echocardiography, but also spirometry. We stress the role of the GP in case finding and risk stratification with optimisation of cardiovascular drug use in high-risk groups. Epidemiological data are provided, followed by discussion of the management aspects and possibilities of cooperative care of patients with chronic HF, focussing on pharmacological treatment, comorbidities and end-of-life care. This article highlights the experience and clinical practice of the authors: specifics of local heart failure management, and the role of the GP, will naturally vary.

Heart Failure Virtual Consultation: bridging the gap of heart failure care in the community - A mixed-methods evaluation

Aims

We undertook a mixed‐methods evaluation of a Web‐based conferencing service (virtual consult) between general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists in managing patients with heart failure in the community to determine its effect on use of specialist heart failure services and acceptability to GPs.

Methods and results

All cases from June 2015 to October 2016 were recorded using a standardized recording template, which recorded patient demographics, medical history, medications, and outcome of the virtual consult for each case. Quantitative surveys and qualitative interviewing of 17 participating GPs were also undertaken. During this time, 142 cases were discussed—68 relating to a new diagnosis of heart failure, 53 relating to emerging deterioration in a known heart failure patient, and 21 relating to therapeutic issues. Only 17% required review in outpatient department following the virtual consultation. GPs reported increased confidence in heart failure management, a broadening of their knowledge base, and a perception of overall better patient outcomes.

Conclusions

These data from an initial experience with Heart Failure Virtual Consultation present a very positive impact of this strategy on the provision of heart failure care in the community and acceptability to users. Further research on the implementation and expansion of this strategy is warranted.

Heart failure in patients with coronary heart disease: Prevalence, characteristics and guideline implementation - Results from the German EuroAspire IV cohort

Background

Adherence to pharmacotherapeutic treatment guidelines in patients with heart failure (HF) is of major prognostic importance, but thorough implementation of guidelines in routine care remains insufficient. Our aim was to investigate prevalence and characteristics of HF in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), and to assess the adherence to current HF guidelines in patients with HF stage C, thus identifying potential targets for the optimization of guideline implementation.

Methods

Patients from the German sample of the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EuroAspire) IV survey with a hospitalization for CHD within the previous six to 36 months providing valid data on echocardiography as well as on signs and symptoms of HF were categorized into stages of HF: A, prevalence of risk factors for developing HF; B, asymptomatic but with structural heart disease; C, symptomatic HF. A Guideline Adherence Indicator (GAI-3) was calculated for patients with reduced (≤40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) as number of drugs taken per number of drugs indicated; beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were considered.

Results

509/536 patients entered analysis. HF stage A was prevalent in n = 20 (3.9%), stage B in n = 264 (51.9%), and stage C in n = 225 (44.2%) patients; 94/225 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF (42%). Stage C patients were older, had a longer duration of CHD, and a higher prevalence of arterial hypertension. Awareness of pre-diagnosed HF was low (19%). Overall GAI-3 of HFrEF patients was 96.4% with a trend towards lower GAI-3 in patients with lower LVEF due to less thorough MRA prescription.

Conclusions

In our sample of CHD patients, prevalence of HF stage C was high and a sizable subgroup suffered from HFrEF. Overall, pharmacotherapy was fairly well implemented in HFrEF patients, although somewhat worse in patients with more reduced ejection fraction. Two major targets were identified possibly suited to further improve the implementation of HF guidelines: 1) increase patients´ awareness of diagnosis and importance of HF; and 2) disseminate knowledge about the importance of appropriately implementing the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

Trial registration

This is a cross-sectional analysis of a non-interventional study. Therefore, it was not registered as an interventional trial.

Expert Comment: Is Medication Titration in Heart Failure too Complex?

Large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers decrease mortality and hospitalisation in patients with heart failure (HF) associated with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. This has led to high prescription rates; however, these drugs are generally prescribed at much lower doses than the doses achieved in the RCTs. A number of strategies have been evaluated to improve medication titration in HF, including forced medication up-titration protocols, point-of-care decision support and extended scope of clinical practice for nurses and pharmacists. Most successful strategies have been multifaceted and have adapted existing multidisciplinary models of care. Furthermore, given the central role of general practitioners in long-term monitoring and care coordination in HF patients, these strategies should engage with primary care to facilitate the transition between the acute and primary healthcare sectors.