Association of a device-based remote management heart failure pathway with outcomes: TriageHF Plus real-world evaluation

AIMS

Clinical pathways have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). Although patients with HF often have a cardiac implantable electronic device, few studies have reported the utility of device-derived risk scores to augment and organize care. TriageHF Plus is a device-based HF clinical pathway (DHFP) that uses remote monitoring alerts to trigger structured telephone assessment for HF stability and optimization. We aimed to evaluate the impact of TriageHF Plus on hospitalizations and describe the associated workforce burden.

METHODS AND RESULTS

TriageHF Plus was a multi-site, prospective study that compared outcomes for patients recruited between April 2019 and February 2021. All alert-triggered assessments were analysed to determine the appropriateness of the alert and the workload burden. A negative-binomial regression with inverse probability treatment weighting using a time-matched usual care cohort was applied to estimate the effect of TriageHF Plus on non-elective hospitalizations. A post hoc pre-COVID-19 sensitivity analysis was also performed. The TriageHF Plus cohort (n = 443) had a mean age of 68.8 ± 11.2 years, 77% male (usual care cohort: n = 315, mean age of 66.2 ± 14.5 years, 65% male). In the TriageHF Plus cohort, an acute medical issue was identified following an alert in 79/182 (43%) cases. Fifty assessments indicated acute HF, requiring clinical action in 44 cases. At 30 day follow-up, 39/66 (59%) of initially symptomatic patients reported improvement, and 20 (19%) initially asymptomatic patients had developed new symptoms. On average, each assessment took 10 min. The TriageHF Plus group had a 58% lower rate of hospitalizations across full follow-up [incidence relative ratio: 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-0.76, P = 0.004]. Across the pre-COVID-19 window, hospitalizations were 31% lower (0.69, 95% CI: 0.46-1.04, P = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

These data represent the largest real-world evaluation of a DHFP based on multi-parametric risk stratification. The TriageHF Plus clinical pathway was associated with an improvement in HF symptoms and reduced all-cause hospitalizations.

Neonatal lumbar puncture: are clinical landmarks accurate?

BACKGROUND

The intercristal line (ICL), defined by the superior aspect of the iliac crest, is used to clinically identify the entry point for lumbar puncture (LP) in neonates. Accepted practice is to insert the needle at the L3/4 or L4/5 intervertebral space.

AIM

To investigate the vertebral level crossed by the ICL as determined by manual palpation and the ability of manual palpation to reliably identify a specified intervertebral space.

METHOD

A total of 30 term neonates were recruited. Paediatricians identified and marked the ICL and the intervertebral space above, with babies in left lateral position. The anatomical positions of both points and the end of the conus medullaris were confirmed using ultrasonography.

RESULTS

The ICL was marked from L2/3 to L5/S1. In 25 babies (83%), the ICL was identified at the desired vertebral level between L3/4 and L4/5. The intervertebral space above this line was marked between L1/2 to L4/5. The potential site for LP was identified higher than intended in 11 cases (36%). The end of the conus medullaris ranged from L1 to L3 terminating at L2 or lower in 11 cases (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are wide variations in the positions of the ICL and potential LP site. Using the ICL to guide LP does not appear to be accurate, raising the possibility of potential spinal cord damage.