Exploring heart failure nurse practitioner outcome measures: a scoping review.

AIMS: Clinical guidelines recommend people with heart failure are managed within a multidisciplinary team to receive optimal evidence-based management of the syndrome. There is increasing evidence that Nurse Practitioners (NP) in heart failure demonstrate positive patient outcomes. However, their roles as key stakeholders in a multidisciplinary heart failure team are not clearly defined. The aim of the review was to explore the literature related to NP-sensitive outcomes in heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: A scoping review was conducted according to accepted guidelines using the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for conducting a scoping review, to identify the literature that related to NP-sensitive outcomes in heart failure management. Sixteen texts were selected for data extraction and analysis. The most common outcome measures reported were readmission rates, self-care measurement scales, functional status scores, quality of life measurements, and medication optimization outcomes. No two studies collected or reported on the same outcome measurements. CONCLUSION: This review highlights that the reporting of heart failure (HF) NP outcome indicators was inconsistent and disparate across the literature. The outcome measures reported were not exclusive to NP interventions. Nurse Practitioner roles are not clearly defined, and resulting outcomes from care are difficult to characterize. Standardized NP-specific outcome measures would serve to highlight the effectiveness of the role in a multidisciplinary HF team.

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.

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.

Fluid restriction in the management of decompensated heart failure: no impact on time to clinical stability.

BACKGROUND: To examine the clinical effect of fluid restriction in patients admitted to the hospital with class IV heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a single-blind randomized controlled study. Time to clinical stability was compared between the fluid restricted (FR: n = 34) and free fluid (FF: n = 33) groups respectively showing no significant difference (8.3 +/- 6.3 days versus 7.0 +/- 6.0 days, P = .17). There was no significant difference between groups in time to discontinuation of intravenous diuretic therapy (FR: 2.7 +/- 4.5 days, FF: 3.2 +/- 5.6 days, P = .70). Changes from baseline to achievement of clinical stability in serum urea (P = .23), serum creatinine (P = .14), BNP (P = .42), and sodium (P = .14) did not differ between the FF and FR groups. Baseline serum sodium levels did not predict the time to clinical stability (beta = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.60, 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Fluid restriction is not an evidence-based therapy although it is occasionally applied in the management of HF. These results suggest that FR is not of any clinical benefit in patients with acute decompensated HF and this hypothesis should be tested in a larger randomized controlled study.

Progression of preserved systolic function heart failure to systolic dysfunction -- a natural history study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the natural history of left ventricular (LV) structure and function in sequential heart failure admissions with preserved systolic function. BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) with preserved LV systolic function accounts for between 20% and 30% of typical HF populations. Few data are available concerning the natural history of structural and functional changes in the LV in this patient population. METHODS: We consented sequential admissions from the community with confirmed heart failure to participate in this study. Doppler-echocardiography was used to assess Ejection Fraction (EF), LV structure, regional wall motion and parameters of diastolic function including E:A ratio, E-wave deceleration time (DtE) and isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT). Follow-up echocardiography was carried out at three months (mean 103+/-13 days) from discharge. RESULTS: Of 210 sequential admissions with primary heart failure 56 had preserved systolic function (LVEF> or =45%). Follow-up data at three months were available in 38 patients (mean age 72 years) with preserved LV systolic function. Of the group, 9 had been admitted within three months of discharge, 5 for recurrent HF. Eight patients (21%) exhibited significant decline in LV systolic function at follow-up, all with LVEF<45%. Three exhibited regional wall-motion abnormalities with the remainder showing dilatation and global reduction in function. None of these eight had presented to hospital for any cause other than routine outpatient department (OPD) visits during the 3 months. CONCLUSION: Patients with preserved systolic function HF, a significant number may progress to systolic dysfunction with or without clinical events.

Heart failure care in a hospital unit: a comparison of standard 3-month and extended 6-month programs.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that a structured in-hospital and outpatient heart failure (HF) program reduces clinical events over a 3-month period following hospital discharge. AIMS: This prospective randomized controlled study examines the additional benefits of extending the standard 3-month HF program to 6 months on death and readmission over a 2-year follow-up period. METHODS: Of 161 patients admitted with NYHA class IV HF who completed the standard 3-month HF program, 130 consenting patients (mean age 69.9+/-12.2 years, 65% male) were randomized to the extended 6-month HF program (EP; n=62) or standard care (SP; n=68). The primary endpoint was death and/or unplanned rehospitalization for HF at 2 years postrandomization. RESULTS: In the 2-year follow-up period, there were eight people with unplanned hospitalizations for HF and 16 deaths in the EP group (event rate 38.7%) compared to seven people with unplanned HF readmissions and 14 deaths in the SP group (event rate 30.9%, p=0.348 versus EP). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome between standard and extended program (p=0.315). There were no differences between the groups in terms of unscheduled clinic visits or non-HF-related readmissions in the 2-year follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: There is no measured clinical advantage in terms of death and/or HF readmission in extending a structured hospital-based disease management program for HF beyond 3 months postdischarge. However, it appears that patients continue to need access to the service to help abort clinical deteriorations, and this may have implication for the optimal organisation of such programs.

Specialist care of heart failure improves appropriate pharmacotherapy at the expense of greater polypharmacy and drug-interactions.

BACKGROUND: There is growing concern at the nature and extent of polypharmacy in heart failure (HF), which may be associated with increased drug interactions, adverse drug effects and a poor understanding of and compliance with therapy. AIMS: This study evaluates polypharmacy in a relatively unselected community heart failure population following emergency admission and determines the impact of an in-hospital, specialist heart failure care programme on appropriate pharmacotherapy, polypharmacy and drug interactions. METHODS: We analysed the medication profiles of 91 consecutive patients with an emergency admission for HF to our institution on admission and discharge. The numbers of inappropriate medicines, inappropriate dosages and omitted medicines according to guidelines were recorded. Medication profiles were analysed for potential drug-drug, drug-liver and drug-kidney interactions using standard criteria. RESULTS: In the study population, average age 71.1+/-10.4 years, 65.9% were male, 68.1% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction and the average ejection fraction on transfer to the specialist HF service was 38+/-13%. A total of 66 inappropriate medicines, 107 omitted medicines and 37 inappropriate dosage regimens were identified in the cohort on admission. These figures had dropped to 31, 33 and 19, respectively, on discharge, with per patient averages decreasing significantly (all P<0.0001). However, polypharmacy and potential drug interactions increased by 33% and 62%, respectively, from admission to discharge (P<0.0001) as did drug-kidney interactions and drug-liver interactions. Only ischemic aetiology and hypercholesterolaemia predicted polypharmacy in this cohort on discharge, whereas age, sex, renal function and heart failure type did not. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist care of heart failure following emergency admission results in more appropriate pharmacotherapy of heart failure. However, increased polypharmacy and drug-interactions are an inevitable consequence independent of age, sex and renal function. We advocate a practice of systematic evaluation of polypharmacy in all heart failure patients to identify potential problems and modify therapy where appropriate.

Specialist nurse supervised in-hospital titration to target dose ACE inhibitor--is it safe and feasible in a community heart failure population?

BACKGROUND: Recently published guidelines from the ESC and practical recommendations from an international group of experts support the up-titration of ACE inhibitors at 1- to 2-week intervals. Observance of these guidelines could contribute to the under-dosing of ACE inhibitors at discharge in patients admitted with heart failure. Specialist heart failure nurse supervision of ACE inhibitor titration during the in-hospital stay could be a safe and effective means of avoiding this problem. OBJECTIVE: This observational study examines the feasibility of specialist heart failure nurse supervised rapid titration of ACE inhibition to at least target dose in sequential, class IV heart failure patients admitted to the cardiology service with left ventricular failure and not previously treated with an ACE inhibitor. METHODS: Fifty-two patients (mean age 71.9+/-11.6 years) were initiated on perindopril and titrated to maximally tolerated dose during the in-hospital phase. Indices of renal function (creatinine, urea, potassium) and systolic blood pressure were observed at baseline and at discharge from hospital and at 3 months. Lengths of stay and titration intervals were recorded. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 10.3+/-7.7 days and 98% of patients achieved at least target dose of perindopril before discharge. The average time to titration to final dose was 5.5+/-4.2 days. Systolic blood pressure decreased significantly from 132+/-28 mmHg on admission to 117+/-18 mmHg on discharge. Mean baseline urea, creatinine and potassium did not change from admission to discharge (urea 8.4+/-2.5 to 9.2+/-3.9 mmol/l, P=0.15; creatinine 122.7+/-30.3 to 122.4+/-35.4 micromol/l, P=0.93; potassium 4.0+/-0.5 to 4.0+/-0.3 mEq/l, P=0.86). No significant changes were observed in these parameters at 12 weeks. There were no recorded incidences of symptomatic hypotension or progressive renal dysfunction even in patients (n=25) with evidence of chronic renal impairment (creatinine >120 micromol/l). CONCLUSIONS: Specialist heart failure nurse supervised initiation and rapid in-hospital titration of ACE inhibitor to at least target dose is feasible and safe in a severe heart failure population admitted with class IV heart failure. Routine application of this approach may help avoid under-dosing of ACE inhibitors without increasing length of hospital stay, and may reduce outpatient visits to heart failure clinics for titration.

Is multidisciplinary care of heart failure cost-beneficial when combined with optimal medical care?

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) of heart failure (HF) can significantly reduce rates of unplanned hospitalisation, the major cost component of HF care. AIMS: This prospective, randomised, controlled study examines the cost-benefits of MDC of HF in the setting of optimal medical care. METHODS: 98 NYHA class IV HF patients (mean age 70.8+/-10.5 years) were randomised to MDC (n=51) or routine care (RC; n=47) of HF. A direct intervention cost was calculated from contact time (scheduled and unscheduled) spent by the MDC team. Unplanned hospitalisation costs for HF were calculated at a daily rate of 242. Outcomes were determined in monetary terms, i.e. the cost of the service per hospitalisation prevented and net costs/savings at 3 months. RESULTS: The direct intervention cost of the MDC team was 5860, with an average cost per patient of 113 (95% Cl: 97-128). At 3 months, there were a total of 12 unplanned HF readmissions in the RC group (25.5% rate, 195 days) compared to 2 in the MDC group (3.9% rate, 17 days). The number needed to treat to prevent one hospitalisation for HF was 6 over 3 months. The cost of the service per hospitalisation prevented was 586. The intervention produced a net cost saving of 37,216 for 51 patients treated over 3 months. Sensitivity analyses using 50% variation in costs and lower relative risk reductions confirmed the cost-benefits of the intervention. CONCLUSION: MDC of HF remains cost-beneficial when combined with optimal, medical care. The significant clinical and cost-benefits suggest that this intensive approach to MDC and medical management should become the standard of care for HF.

Heart failure management: multidisciplinary care has intrinsic benefit above the optimization of medical care.

PURPOSE: This work addresses the unanswered question of whether multidisciplinary care (MDC) of heart failure (HF) can reduce readmissions when optimal medical care is applied in both intervention and control groups. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled study, 98 patients (mean age, 70.8 +/- 10.5 years) admitted to hospital with left ventricular failure (New York Heart Association Class IV) were assigned to routine care (RC, n = 47) or MDC (n = 51). All patients received the same components of inpatient, optimal medical care of HF: specialist-led inpatient care; titration to maximum tolerated dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor before discharge; attainment of predetermined discharge criteria (weight stable, off all intravenous therapy, and no change in oral regimen for 2 days). Only those in the MDC group received inpatient and outpatient education and close telephone and clinic follow-up. The primary study endpoint was rehospitalization or death for a HF-related issue at 3 months. MAIN FINDINGS: At 3 months, four people had events in the MDC group (7.8% rate over 3 months) compared with 12 people (25.5% rate over 3 months) in the RC group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate for the first time the intrinsic benefit of MDC in the setting of protocol-driven, optimal medical management of HF. Moreover, the event rate of 7.8% at 3 months, as the lowest reported rate for such a high-risk group, underlines the value of this approach to the management of heart failure.