Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary disease management program on outcomes in patients with heart failure in China: A randomized controlled single center study

Impact of exercise training on clinical outcomes and quality of life in chronic congestive heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Exercise training is a well-established intervention for patients with heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Still, the evidence of its effects on mortality, hospitalization, and quality of life needs to be more conclusive. We aim to evaluate exercise training clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

METHODS

We searched five databases and three clinical trial registries for RCTs that compared exercise training plus usual care versus usual care alone in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. We extracted data on all-cause mortality, hospital admission, heart failure hospitalization, and health-related quality of life measured by the Minnesota Living with HF questionnaire (MLHFW) and other scales. We pooled the data using random-effects or fixed-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity of the outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

RESULTS

We included 61 RCTs with 9062 participants. There was no mortality benefit, but exercise training improved health-related quality of life, reduced hospital admission at 12 months and longer follow-up, and reduced heart failure hospitalization. We observed substantial enhancement in health-related quality of life and a greater decrease in hospital admissions in the HFpEF group compared to the HFrEF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the lack of mortality benefit, exercise training is a beneficial intervention for CHF patients, improving health-related quality of life and reducing hospitalization.

Care models for patients with heart failure at home: A systematic review

AIMS

The aim of this study is to evaluate the relative merits of various heart failure models of care with regard to a variety of outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Five databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and Science Direct were searched from the inception date of databases to August 20, 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

This review used the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of Bias' tool to assess quality. Only randomised controlled trails were included in this review that assessed all care models in the management of adults with heart failure. A categorical summary of the pattern of the papers was found, followed by extraction of outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Twenty articles (19 studies) were included. Seven examined nurse-led care, two examined multidisciplinary specialist care, nine (10 articles) examined patient self-management, and one examined nurse and physiotherapist co-led care. Regarding outcomes, this review examined how well the four models performed with regard to quality of life, health services use, HF self-care, and anxiety and depression for heart failure patients. The model of patient self-management showed more beneficial results than nurse-led care, multidisciplinary specialist care, and nurse and physiotherapist co-led care in reducing hospital days, improving symptoms, promoting self-care behaviours of HF patients, enhancing the quality of life, and strengthening self-care ability.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review synthesises the different care models and their relative effectiveness. Four different models of care were summarised. Of these models, the self-management model demonstrated better outcomes.

IMPACT

The self-management model is more effective in increasing self-management behaviours and self-management abilities, lowering the risk of hospitalisation and death, improving quality of life, and relieving anxiety and depression than other models.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

People with heart failure experience substantial disease burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous 2018 Cochrane review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission amongst people with heart failure, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with heart failure with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with heart failure with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in a hospital or centre-based setting.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ExCR on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of adults with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science without language restriction on 13 December 2021. We also checked the bibliographies of included studies, identified relevant systematic reviews, and two clinical trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ExCR interventions (either exercise only or exercise as part of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation) with a follow-up of six months or longer versus a no-exercise control (e.g. usual medical care). The study population comprised adults (≥ 18 years) with heart failure - either HFrEF or HFpEF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, mortality due to heart failure, all-cause hospital admissions, heart failure-related hospital admissions, and HRQoL. Secondary outcomes were costs and cost-effectiveness. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 trials (8728 participants) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 16 new trials (2945 new participants), in addition to the previously identified 44 trials (5783 existing participants). Although the existing evidence base predominantly includes patients with HFrEF, with New York Heart Association (NYHA) classes II and III receiving centre-based ExCR programmes, a growing body of trials includes patients with HFpEF with ExCR undertaken in a home-based setting. All included trials employed a usual care comparator with a formal no-exercise intervention as well as a wide range of active comparators, such as education, psychological intervention, or medical management. The overall risk of bias in the included trials was low or unclear, and we mostly downgraded the certainty of evidence of outcomes upon GRADE assessment. There was no evidence of a difference in the short term (up to 12 months' follow-up) in the pooled risk of all-cause mortality when comparing ExCR versus usual care (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.21; absolute effects 5.0% versus 5.8%; 34 trials, 36 comparisons, 3941 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only a few trials reported information on whether participants died due to heart failure. Participation in ExCR versus usual care likely reduced the risk of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; absolute effects 15.9% versus 23.8%; 23 trials, 24 comparisons, 2283 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and heart failure-related hospital admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.35; absolute effects 5.6% versus 6.4%; 10 trials; 10 comparisons, 911 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) in the short term. Participation in ExCR likely improved short-term HRQoL as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaire (lower scores indicate better HRQoL and a difference of 5 points or more indicates clinical importance; mean difference (MD) -7.39 points, 95% CI -10.30 to -4.77; 21 trials, 22 comparisons, 2699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When pooling HRQoL data measured by any questionnaire/scale, we found that ExCR may improve HRQoL in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (33 trials, 37 comparisons, 4769 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.34; very-low certainty evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent across different models of ExCR delivery: centre- versus home-based, exercise dose, exercise only versus comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone versus aerobic plus resistance programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane review provides additional randomised evidence (16 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous 2018 version of the review. Compared to no exercise control, whilst there was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality in people with heart failure, ExCR participation likely reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and heart failure-related hospital admissions, and may result in important improvements in HRQoL. Importantly, this updated review provides additional evidence supporting the use of alternative modes of ExCR delivery, including home-based and digitally-supported programmes. Future ExCR trials need to focus on the recruitment of traditionally less represented heart failure patient groups including older patients, women, and those with HFpEF.

Impact of Long-Term Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to clarify the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on patients with heart failure.Methods and Results: Patients were divided into groups according to intervention duration (<6 and ≥6 months). We searched for studies published up to July 2023 in Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, without limitations on data, language, or publication status. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of CR and usual care on mortality, prehospitalization, peak oxygen uptake (V̇O2), and quality of life. Seventy-two studies involving 8,495 patients were included in this review. It was found that CR reduced the risk of rehospitalization for any cause (risk ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.92) and for heart failure (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78-1.00). Furthermore, CR was found to improve exercise tolerance (measured by peak V̇O2and the 6-min walk test) and quality of life. A subanalysis performed based on intervention duration (<6 and ≥6 months) revealed a similar trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that although CR does not reduce mortality, it is effective in reducing rehospitalization rates and improving exercise tolerance and quality of life, regardless of the intervention duration.

Which Components of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) are Covered by Cardiac Rehabilitation Assessment Tools among Individuals with Heart Failure?

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic assessment of functioning in cardiac rehabilitation from the perspective of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can provide a biopsychosocial approach to health care. However, it is unclear which components are reflected in the instruments used for cardiac rehabilitation in individuals with heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate which ICF components (body function, structures, activities, participation, environmental factors, and personal factors) are represented in the assessment instruments used in individuals with HF and to identify the most appropriate instrument to use based on the inclusion of these factors.

METHODS

Forty-four clinical trials included in an updated Cochrane systematic review that investigated the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with HF were reviewed. The instruments were analyzed to extract significant concepts linked to the ICF codes.

RESULTS

A total of 12 outcomes and 40 instruments were identified. The concepts were linked to 2466 codes in the following ICF components: body functions (41.8%), activities (29.7%), participation (8.4%), environmental factors (3.8%), personal factors (1.3%), and body structures (1.0%); other concepts (13.9%) were classified as not covered by ICF. None of the instruments presented concepts linked to all ICF components. The Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), however, demonstrated comprehensive coverage of the ICF components, with the exception of body structure.

CONCLUSIONS

Body function was the most frequently detected ICF component. Individual instruments did not provide a comprehensive perspective on the functioning level of individuals with HF. The MLHFQ provided the greatest coverage of ICF components.

Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based and technology-supported cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation, especially during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009, 2015, and 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effect of home-based (which may include digital/telehealth interventions) and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, exercise-capacity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCO) on 16 September 2022. We also searched two clinical trials registers as well as previous systematic reviews and reference lists of included studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, sports/community centre) with home-based programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms) in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, or who had undergone revascularisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references for inclusion based on predefined inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by involving a third review author. Two authors independently extracted outcome data and study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three new trials in this update, bringing a total of 24 trials that have randomised a total of 3046 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. A further nine studies were identified and are awaiting classification. Manual searching of trial registers until 16 September 2022 revealed a further 14 clinical trial registrations - these are ongoing. Participants had a history of acute myocardial infarction, revascularisation, or heart failure. Although there was little evidence of high risk of bias, a number of studies provided insufficient detail to enable assessment of potential risk of bias; in particular, details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequencing and blinding of outcome assessment were poorly reported. No evidence of a difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in our primary outcomes up to 12 months of follow-up: total mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 2.16; participants = 1647; studies = 12/comparisons = 14; low-certainty evidence) or exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.04; participants = 2343; studies = 24/comparisons = 28; low-certainty evidence). The majority of evidence (N=71 / 77 comparisons of either total or domain scores) showed no significant difference in health-related quality of life up to 24 months follow-up between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation. Trials were generally of short duration, with only three studies reporting outcomes beyond 12 months (exercise capacity: SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.23; participants = 1074; studies = 3; moderate-certainty evidence). There was a similar level of trial completion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.08; participants = 2638; studies = 22/comparisons = 26; low-certainty evidence) between home-based and centre-based participants. The cost per patient of centre- and home-based programmes was similar.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This update supports previous conclusions that home- (± digital/telehealth platforms) and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation formally supported by healthcare staff seem to be similarly effective in improving clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in patients after myocardial infarction, or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding supports the continued expansion of healthcare professional supervised home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes (± digital/telehealth platforms), especially important in the context of the ongoing global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic that has much limited patients in face-to-face access of hospital and community health services. Where settings are able to provide both supervised centre- and home-based programmes, consideration of the preference of the individual patient would seem appropriate. Although not included in the scope of this review, there is an increasing evidence base supporting the use of hybrid models that combine elements of both centre-based and home-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery. Further data are needed to determine: (1) whether the short-term effects of home/digital-telehealth and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation models of delivery can be confirmed in the longer term; (2) the relative clinical effectiveness and safety of home-based programmes for other heart patients, e.g. post-valve surgery and atrial fibrillation.

Psychosocial interventions and mental health in patients with cardiovascular diseases living in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Mental health issues are closely associated with symptoms and outcomes of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The magnitude of this problem is alarmingly high in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions on mental health outcomes among patients with CVDs living in LMICs.

METHODS

This review includes Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted on adult patients who had a CVD and/or hypertension and located in LMICs. Studies published in English between 2010 and March, 2021 and which primarily reported mental health outcomes of resilience, self-efficacy, Quality of life (QoL), depression and anxiety were included. Studies were screened, extracted and critically appraised by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was conducted for RCTs and narrative summaries were conducted for all other studies. PRISMA guidelines were followed for reporting review methods and findings.

RESULTS

109 studies included in this review reported educational, nursing, behavioral and psychological, spiritual, relaxation, and mindfulness interventions provided by multidisciplinary teams. 14 studies reported self-efficacy, 70 reported QoL, 62 reported one or both of anxiety and depression, and no study was found that reported resilience as an outcome in this population. Pooled analysis showed improvements in self-efficacy and QoL outcomes. The majority of studies showed improvement in outcomes, though the quality of the included studies varied.

CONCLUSION

Patients with CVDs in LMICs may experience improved mental health through the use of diverse psychosocial interventions. Evaluations are needed to investigate whether the impact of interventions on mental health are sustained over time.

Multidisciplinary Care in Heart Failure Services

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of American 2022 guidelines for heart failure (HF) recommend a multidisciplinary team approach for patients with HF. The multidisciplinary HF team-based approach decreases the hospitalization rate for HF and health care costs and improves adherence to self-care and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy. This article proposes the optimal multidisciplinary team structure and each team member's delineated role to achieve institutional goals and metrics for HF care. The proposed HF-specific multidisciplinary team comprises cardiologists, surgeons, advanced practice providers, clinical pharmacists, specialty nurses, dieticians, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers, immunologists, and palliative care clinicians. A standardized multidisciplinary HF team-based approach should be incorporated to optimize the structure, minimize the redundancy of clinical responsibilities among team members, and improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in their HF care.

Elements Characterising Multicomponent Interventions Used to Improve Disease Management Models and Clinical Pathways in Acute and Chronic Heart Failure: A Scoping Review

This study aimed to summarise different interventions used to improve clinical models and pathways in the management of chronic and acute heart failure (HF). A scoping review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched for systematic reviews (SR) published in the period from 2014 to 2019 in the English language. Primary articles cited in SR that fulfil inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted and examined using narrative synthesis. Interventions were classified based on five chosen elements of the Chronic Care Model (CCM) framework (self-management support, decision support, community resources and policies, delivery system, and clinical information system). Out of 155 SRs retrieved, 7 were considered for the extraction of 166 primary articles. The prevailing setting was the patient's home. Only 46 studies specified the severity of HF by reporting the level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) impairment in a heterogeneous manner. However, most studies targeted the populations with LVEF ≤ 45% and LVEF < 40%. Self-management and delivery systems were the most evaluated CCM elements. Interventions related to community resources and policy and advising/reminding systems for providers were rarely evaluated. No studies addressed the implementation of a disease registry. A multidisciplinary team was available with similarly low frequency in each setting. Although HF care should be a multi-component model, most studies did not analyse the role of some important components, such as the decision support tools to disseminate guidelines and program planning that includes measurable targets.

Nonpharmacological Interventions for Preventing Rehospitalization Among Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Heart failure (HF) is the most common condition for rehospitalization among people aged ≥65 years in the United States, with 35,197,725 hospitalizations between 2014 and 2017. Hospitalized patients with HF have the highest 30-day readmission rate (25%). Overall, HF management, despite its progress, remains a challenge. Although several studies have evaluated interventions designed to reduce HF-related hospital readmissions, research comparing their effectiveness remains insufficient.

Purpose

This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on studies that investigated the effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) on reducing rehospitalization among patients with HF.

Methods

This review conformed to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, used four databases: Cumulative index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Studies were included in the review according to the following criteria: (a) included only randomized control trials (RCTs), (b) included participants with HF who were over 18 years of age, (c) peer-reviewed, (d) written in English, and (e) rehospitalizations occurring within 30-day, 90-day, and 1 year of discharge from the initial hospitalization.

Results

Fourteen studies were included, with a total of 2,035 participants. Meta-analysis showed that rehospitalization was different between the intervention and usual care groups. The odds ratio was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [0.36, 0.82, p < 0.01]).

Conclusions/Implications for Practice

NPIs designed to increase HF knowledge and self-management may effectively reduce rehospitalization among HF patients. NPIs can be delivered at the patient's home through visits, phone calls, or digital platforms and technologies.

Effectiveness of daily activity record-based self-monitoring intervention for patients with chronic heart failure: A study protocol

Background

The prevention of recurrent readmission among heart failure (HF) patients requires support for appropriate self-care behaviors to prevent exacerbation of HF and self-monitoring to allow for patients’ early perception of physical changes during exacerbations. Such support may enable patients to seek early consultation. This study developed a self-monitoring intervention that aimed at increasing the perception of patient-unique physical sensations caused by HF, based on daily activity records of patients.

Method

A parallel two-arm randomized controlled trial is being conducted with 68 HF patients early after their discharge. Participants in both groups wear a wristwatch activity tracker from time-of-discharge. Participants in the self-monitoring intervention group receive support to reflect on their actual daily activities and the associated physical sensations they experienced, based on their daily activity records. The primary outcome is participants’ “Asking for Help” dimension of self-care behavior, measured using the European Heart Failure Self-Care Behavior Scale at one month follow-up after intervention.

Conclusion

This study is the first trial to use an activity tracker as a tool for symptom perception among HF patients. The problem of delayed consultations during exacerbations may be resolved by assisting patients in improving their perception of their unique physical sensations associated with specific daily activities, based on their daily activity records. If the effect is clarified, it could lead to the construction of new nursing interventions for continuous disease management that aim towards re-hospitalization prevention.

•

This is the first trial using an activity tracker for symptom perception in HF.

•

Intervention focuses on physical sensations perception along with daily activities.

•

Trial will test intervention's effect on early consultation behavior and readmission.

Effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation delivery modes on exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

This review aimed to compare the relative effectiveness of different exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) delivery modes (centre-based, home-based, hybrid and technology-enabled ExCR) on key heart failure (HF) outcomes: exercise capacity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), HF-related hospitalisation and HF-related mortality.

Methods and results

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published through 20 June 2021 were identified from six databases, and reference lists of included studies. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, respectively. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using R. Continuous and binary outcomes are reported as mean differences (MD) and ORs, respectively, with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI). One-hundred and thirty-nine RCTs (n=18 670) were included in the analysis. Network meta-analysis demonstrated improvements in VO₂peak following centre-based (MD (95% CrI)=3.10 (2.56 to 3.65) mL/kg/min), home-based (MD=2.69 (1.67 to 3.70) mL/kg/min) and technology-enabled ExCR (MD=1.76 (0.27 to 3.26) mL/kg/min). Similarly, 6 min walk distance was improved following hybrid (MD=84.78 (31.64 to 138.32) m), centre-based (MD=50.35 (30.15 to 70.56) m) and home-based ExCR (MD=36.77 (12.47 to 61.29) m). Incremental shuttle walk distance did not improve following any ExCR delivery modes. Minnesota living with HF questionnaire improved after centre-based (MD=−10.38 (−14.15 to –6.46)) and home-based ExCR (MD=−8.80 (−13.62 to –4.07)). Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire was improved following home-based ExCR (MD=20.61 (4.61 to 36.47)), and Short Form Survey 36 mental component after centre-based ExCR (MD=3.64 (0.30 to 6.14)). HF-related hospitalisation and mortality risks reduced only after centre-based ExCR (OR=0.41 (0.17 to 0.76) and OR=0.42 (0.16 to 0.90), respectively). Mean age of study participants was only associated with changes in VO₂peak.

Conclusion

ExCR programmes have broader benefits for people with HF and since different delivery modes were comparably effective for improving exercise capacity and HRQoL, the selection of delivery modes should be tailored to individuals’ preferences.

Association between Chronic Disease Self-Management, Health Status, and Quality of Life in Older Taiwanese Adults with Chronic Illnesses

Aging is accompanied by many chronic comorbidities and disabilities, and entails medical expenses, which affects the quality of life among older adults. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the health status of older adults with chronic diseases mediates chronic disease self-management to predict quality of life. Methods: This research adopted a cross-sectional correlation study design. Convenient sampling was performed in outpatient departments commonly visited by older adults in a medical center in Southern Taiwan. The following measures were collected: (1) Physiological measurement: left handgrip, right handgrip, and lower extremities’ muscle strength. (2) Questionnaires: cognitive function was measured by the Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-8 scale, possible frailty with the Kihon Checklist (KCL), functional status with the Barthel Index (BI) and the Lawton and Brody Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scales, and self-management for chronic disease and quality of life with the (WHOQOL)-BREF, Taiwan version. Results: Chronic disease self-management is correlated with health status and is directly related to quality of life. Chronic disease self-management also indirectly affects quality of life through health status (cognitive status and risk of frailty), showing that health status partly mediates the correlation between chronic disease self-management and quality of life. Conclusions: A health status feedback system should be introduced in related chronic disease self-management measures for older adults so that they can be aware of their own health status and so that their quality of life is improved. Custom-made nursing interventions are necessary for the reduction in or delay of disability or risk of frailty in older adults, thereby enhancing their quality of life.

Personalized Care Management for Persons with Parkinson's Disease

There is a growing awareness that delivery of integrated and personalized care is necessary to meet the needs of persons living with Parkinson's disease. In other chronic diseases than Parkinson's disease, care management models have been deployed to deliver integrated and personalized care, yielding positive effects on patients' health outcomes, quality of life and health care utilization. However, care management models have been highly heterogeneous, as there is currently no clear operationalization of its core elements. In addition, most care management models are disease-specific and not tailored to the individual needs and preferences of a patient. In this viewpoint we present an integrated and personalized care management model for persons with Parkinson's disease costing of five core elements: (1) care coordination, (2) patient navigation, (3) information provision, (4) early detection of signs and symptoms through proactive monitoring and (5) process monitoring. Following the description of each core element, implications for implementing the model into practice are discussed. Finally, we provide clinical and methodological considerations on the evaluation of care management models.

Recruitment and retention rates in randomised controlled trials of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To quantify recruitment, retention and differential retention rates and associated trial, participant and intervention characteristics in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL from 1990 to April 20, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs including people with multimorbidity comparing exercise therapy with a non-exposed comparator group reporting at least one of the following outcomes: physical function, health-related quality of life, depression symptoms, or anxiety symptoms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Recruitment rates (proportion of people randomised/proportion of people eligible), retention rates (proportion of people providing the outcomes of interest/proportion randomised) and differential retention rates (difference in proportion of people providing the outcomes in the intervention group and comparator group) were calculated. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to estimate pooled proportions. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane ´Risk of Bias tool 2.0´ for individual studies, and the GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-three RCTs with 3363 people were included. The pooled prevalence for recruitment rate was 75% (95%CI 66 to 84%). The pooled prevalence for retention rate was 90% (95%CI 86 to 94%) at the end of the intervention (12 weeks; interquartile range (IQR) (12 to 12)). Meta-regression analyses showed that increasing age and including a higher proportion of people with hypertension was associated with lower retention rates. Retention rates did not differ between the intervention and comparator groups. The overall quality of the evidence was deemed very low.

CONCLUSION

Three in four eligible people with multimorbidity were randomised to RCTs using exercise therapy, of which nine out of 10 provided end of treatment outcomes with no difference seen between the intervention and comparison groups. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to large differences between the included studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov CRD42020161329 . Registered on 28 April 2020.

A constructivist approach to teaching patients with heart failure: results from an intervention study

AIMS

Despite published guidelines emphasizing the importance of education in the management of heart failure (HF), the most effective method of education remains unknown. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of constructivist teaching method (CTM) on the patients with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group were educated using the CTM in five phases: orientation, elicitation, restructuring, application, and review. The duration of intervention was 6 months. For the study outcome measures, five questionnaires were used: Atlanta Heart Failure Knowledge Test (AHFK), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (HMLHFQ), Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale (SEAMS), European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS-9), and Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). A total of 122 adults (83.6% male, mean age ± standard deviation 67.1 ± 12.3 years) were enrolled in the study; 61 in the intervention group and 61 in the control group. At 6 months, the knowledge, the quality of life, the self-efficacy for appropriate medication use, the self-care behaviour, and the activity were improved in both groups but the degree of change was greater in the intervention group as indicated from the results of repeated measurements analysis of variance (P < 0.001). Significantly lower proportion of readmission at hospital at 1 month (8.2% vs. 23%, P = 0.025), and 6 months (13.1% vs. 36.1%, P = 0.003) were found for the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS

Training of HF patients through the CTM helps effectively manage the disease while significantly reducing hospital readmissions due to decompensation.

Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline-recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home-based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta-analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all-cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all-cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home-based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.

The effectiveness of transitional care interventions for adult people with heart failure on patient-centered health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis including dose-response relationship

BACKGROUND

Transitional care interventions that bridge the care gap from hospital to home have proven to be effective in lessening the burden of healthcare systems by reducing hospital readmissions. Yet, the effects of transitional care interventions on patient-centered health outcomes of mortality, quality of life, and emotional distress remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and dose-response of transitional care interventions on patient-centered health outcomes of mortality, quality of life, and emotional distress among individuals with heart failure and to identify the trial-level characteristics potentially affecting the overall effectiveness.

DESIGN

Systematic review with random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression, and dose-response analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing transitional care interventions with usual care in adult people hospitalized with heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched from January 1, 2000 to June 31, 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Authors independently reviewed the retrieved articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2.0. We pooled data from each study using random-effects meta-analysis and performed meta-regression to explore the impact of pre-specified trial-level factors. Dose-response meta-analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the intensity (i.e., frequency and duration of interventions) and complexity (i.e., number of intervention components) of transitional care interventions and the treatment effects.

RESULTS

Data were synthesized from 42 trials covering a total of 10,784 people with heart failure. Comparing to usual care, transitional care interventions achieved pooled evidence of a mean 18% risk reduction on mortality (0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95, P = 0.009) and better improvement in quality of life (-4.37, 95% CI -7.20 to -1.54, P = 0.002). There were insufficient data to determine with certainty the effects on anxiety and depression. Meta-regression showed greater efficacy in trials that delivered the intervention by a multidisciplinary team. Dose-response analyses demonstrated that mortality and quality of life were improved with increased intensity and complexity of the transitional care interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitional care interventions were effective in reducing mortality and improving quality of life for adult people with heart failure. The effects on emotional distress were inconclusive due to insufficient data, highlighting the need for further research.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019132732.

Exercise-Based Rehabilitation for Heart Failure: Cochrane Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study performed a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for heart failure (HF).

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing call for trials of models of ExCR for patients with HF that provide alternatives to conventional center-based provision and recruitment of patients that reflect a broader HF population.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched between January 2013 and January 2018. Randomized trials comparing patients undergoing ExCR to control patients not undergoing exercise were included. Study outcomes were pooled using meta-analysis. Metaregression examined potential effect modification according to ExCR program characteristics, and risk of bias, trial sequential analysis (TSA), and Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were applied.

RESULTS

Across 44 trials (n = 5,783; median follow-up of 6 months), compared with control subjects, ExCR did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR]: 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.66 to 1.21; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.26 to 3.10) but did reduce all-cause hospitalization (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.83; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.54 to 0.92) and HF-specific hospitalization (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.84; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.14 for 2.46), and patients reported improved Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire overall scores (mean difference: -7.1; 95% CI: -10.5 to -3.7; TSA-adjusted CI: -13.2 to -1.0). No evidence of differential effects across different models of delivery, including center- versus home-based programs, were found.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports the beneficial effects of ExCR on patient outcomes. These benefits appear to be consistent across ExCR program characteristics. GRADE and TSA assessments indicated that further high-quality randomized trials are needed.

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes.

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.