The St Vincent's potentially inappropriate medicines study: development of a disease-specific consensus list and its evaluation in ambulatory heart failure care.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) patients may be at risk of prescription of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) yet no disease-specific list is available to assess PIM use in this population. A Consensus Potentially Inappropriate Medicines in Heart Failure (PIMHF) list was developed, assessed, and compared with an established, general tool in an ambulatory HF population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Consensus PIMHF list was compiled using modified Delphi methodology with a multidisciplinary team. The list consisted of 11 items. The medication profile of 350 patients was assessed. The association of a Consensus PIMHF item use over a median follow-up period of 1.8 (interquartile range 1.3-2.1) years with the primary endpoint of death, acute hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient visit was examined. Fifty-one patients (14.6%) were prescribed ≥1 Consensus PIMHF item. In univariable analysis, patients prescribed ≥1 Consensus PIMHF item were 58% more likely to experience the primary endpoint than those with none [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-2.45]. When adjusted for age, sex, and HF severity, this difference remained [hazard ratio (HR) 1.88, 95% CI 1.16-3.06] and these associations were in contrast to the use of a more general tool (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.83-1.84). However, when further adjusted to include co-morbidity score and polypharmacy, there was no association with outcome using either tool (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.83-2.38; HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69-1.60, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Consensus PIMHF list provides the first HF-specific medicines review tool. These results provide some support for more disease-specific tools with limited lists of PIMs to rationalize medicines management in HF. However, more prospective work on the application of these tools in practice is needed.

Can individualized weight monitoring using the HeartPhone algorithm improve sensitivity for clinical deterioration of heart failure?

AIMS: Previous studies have demonstrated poor sensitivity of guideline weight monitoring in predicting clinical deterioration of heart failure (HF). This study aimed to evaluate patterns of remotely transmitted daily weights in a high-risk HF population and also to compare guideline weight monitoring and an individualized weight monitoring algorithm. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consenting, consecutive, high-risk patients were provided with a mobile phone-based remote weight telemonitoring device. We aimed to evaluate population vs. individual weight variability, weight patterns pre- and post-events of clinical deterioration of HF, and to compare guideline weight thresholds with the HeartPhone algorithm in terms of sensitivity and specificity for such events. Of 87 patients recruited and followed for an average of 23.9 ± 12 weeks, 19 patients experienced 28 evaluable episodes of clinical deterioration of HF. Following a post-discharge decline, the population average weight remained stable for the follow-up period, yet the 7-day moving average of individual patients exceeded 2 kg in three-quarters of patients. Significant increases in weight were observed up to 4 days before HF events. The HeartPhone algorithm was significantly more sensitive (82%) in predicting HF events than guideline weight thresholds of 2 kg over 2-3 days (21%) and a 'rule of thumb' threshold of 1.36 kg over 1 day (46%). CONCLUSIONS: An individualized approach to weight monitoring in HF with the HeartPhone algorithm improved prediction of HF deterioration. Further evaluation of HeartPhone with and without other biomarkers of HF deterioration is warranted.