Incidence and Predictors of Eosinophilic Myocardial Hypersensitivity in Patients Receiving Home Dobutamine.

ABSTRACT: We sought to examine incidence and predictors of eosinophilic myocardial hypersensitivity (EMH) in a cohort of patients in the home inotrope program of a quaternary cardiac transplant center. Patients on home inotropes with progression to heart transplantation or ventricular assist device (VAD) between January 2000 and May 2020 were included. EMH was diagnosed by the presence of an interstitial predominate eosinophilic infiltrate within the myocardium by experienced cardiac pathologists. From a cohort of 74 patients, 58% (43) were on dobutamine and 42% (31) were on milrinone. Dobutamine was associated with EMH incidence of 14% (6/43), with zero cases in the milrinone cohort. Mean age was 52 ± 12 years, 22% were female. More than half (62%) were nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathies, the remainder were ischemic cardiomyopathy. Dobutamine dose [250 (200-282) vs. 225 (200-291) µg/min] and duration of therapy [41 (23-79) vs. 53 (24-91) days] was similar between those with and without EMH. Median change in eosinophil count was 0.31 × 10 9 /L in the EMH group compared with only 0.03 × 10 9 /L in the non-EMH cohort, P = 0.02. Increase in peripheral eosinophil count of >0.20 × 10 9 /L demonstrated good discrimination between those with and without EMH, c-statistic 0.83 (95% CI 0.66-1.0). Heart failure hospitalization occurred in 83% of the EMH group versus 59% in the non-EMH group, P = 0.26. Requirement for VAD was significantly higher in the EMH group (83% vs. 41%, P = 0.05). In conclusion, EMH occurred in 14% of patients receiving home dobutamine. Rising eosinophil count should prompt physicians to consider EMH and switch to milrinone to avoid possible escalation to VAD.

Impact of a model of care for heart failure in-patients to reduce variation in care: a quality improvement project.

BACKGROUND: We identified variation in delivery of guideline recommended care at our institution, and undertook a project to design a heart failure (HF) model of care. AIM: To maximise time patients with HF spend well in the community by delivering best practice guidelines to reduce variation in care improving overall outcomes. METHODS: This quality improvement project focused on reducing variation in process measures of care. The HF model of care included electronic HF care bundles, a patient education pack with staff training on delivering HF patient education, referral of all HF patients to the Hospital Admissions Risk Program for phone call within 72 h, and a nurse-pharmacist early follow-up clinic. Outcomes were assessed using interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: The pre-intervention group comprised 1585 patients, and post-intervention 1720 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF admitted under general cardiology and general medicine. Interrupted time series analysis indicated 30-day readmissions did not change in overall trend (-0.2% per month, P = 0.479) but a significant immediate step-down of 7.8% was seen (P = 0.018). For 90-day readmissions, a significant trend reduction over the time period was seen (-0.6% per month, P = 0.017) with a significant immediate step-down (-9.4%, P = 0.001). Emergency department representations, in-patient mortality and length of stay did not change significantly. Improvements in process measures were seen at audit. CONCLUSION: This model of care resulted in overall trends of reductions in 30- and 90-day readmissions, without increasing emergency department representations, mortality and length of stay. This model will be adapted as the electronic medical record is introduced at our institution.