Health-related quality of life in a multicenter randomized controlled comparison of telephonic disease management and automated home monitoring in patients recently hospitalized with heart failure: SPAN-CHF II trial.

BACKGROUND: Although disease management programs have been shown to provide a number of clinical benefits to patients with heart failure (HF), the incremental impact of an automated home monitoring (AHM) system on health-related quality of life (HRQL) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective randomized investigation, examining the additive value of AHM to a previously described nurse-directed HF disease management program (SPAN-CHF), with attention to HRQL, in patients with a recent history of decompensated HF. A total of 188 patients were randomized to receive the SPAN-CHF intervention for 90 days, either with (AHM group) or without (NAHM, standard-care group) AHM, with a 1:1 randomization ratio after HF-related hospitalization. HRQL, measured by the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) (Physical, Emotional, and Total scores on MLHFQ) was assessed at 3 time points: baseline, 45 days, and 90 days. Although both treatments (AHM and NAHM) improved HRQL at 45 and 90 days compared with baseline with respect to Physical, Emotional, and Total domain scales, no significant difference emerged between AHM and NAHM groups. CONCLUSIONS: AHM and NAHM treatments demonstrated improved HRQL scores at 45 and 90 days after baseline assessment. When comparing 2 state-of the-art disease management programs regarding HRQL outcomes, our results did not support the added value of AHM.

Hospital cost effect of a heart failure disease management program: the Specialized Primary and Networked Care in Heart Failure (SPAN-CHF) trial.

BACKGROUND: Determine the effect on hospitalization cost of a heart failure disease management (HFDM) program delivered within a diverse provider network as demonstrated in the SPAN-CHF randomized controlled trial. METHODS: The SPAN-CHF trial was a prospective randomized assessment of the effectiveness of HFDM delivered for 90 days across a diverse provider network in a heterogeneous population of 200 patients. Baseline clinical and demographic data were obtained on each patient, mortality was monitored, and hospitalizations were tracked for 90 days. Cost estimates for each hospitalization were based on a subsample of patients seen at Tufts-New England Medical Center for whom hospitalization costs were calculated. Heart failure disease management program costs were estimated using a programmatic budget model. Hospital utilization and cost data were combined to estimate medical costs for intervention and control groups. RESULTS: Heart failure disease management had a favorable effect on heart failure hospitalization, which was partially offset by noncardiac hospitalizations. The relative odds of at least one all-cause hospitalization during the intervention period trended less for the intervention group compared with the control group (0.76 [95% CI 0.38-1.51]). The point estimate of the differential hospitalization cost between control and intervention groups was a reduction in cost of $375 per patient. The net effect including the costs of the program was an increase of $488 per patient for the intervention group compared with the control group. The program would have been cost saving if HFDM costs had been 24% lower. CONCLUSION: The HFDM intervention, administered over 90 days to patients hospitalized for heart failure, succeeded in reducing the rate of heart failure hospitalizations, although this effect was partially offset by an increase in non-heart failure hospitalizations. The resulting modest reduction in all-cause hospitalization costs was exceeded by the cost of the intervention. Thus, although the reduction in heart failure may be interpreted as an improvement in health status, it could not be considered cost saving.

Depression and anxiety in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Although common among patients with heart failure, depression and anxiety have been relatively neglected by researchers and practitioners. Both depression and anxiety have been implicated in contributing independently to the poor outcomes seen in patients with heart failure. Emphasis in the literature is on physical symptom recognition and management, in contrast to the patient's perspective of the effects of heart failure on his or her daily life. METHODS AND RESULTS: This review summarizes and integrates research findings on anxiety and depression and translates these findings to clinical practice. Depression and anxiety are prevalent among patients with heart failure and require assessment and intervention. Short-term nonpharmacologic approaches, in conjunction with drug therapy, hold promise for successful management of patients who are depressed or anxious. CONCLUSION: Carefully designed clinical trials that are tailored to individual needs, yet are embedded within a systemic framework, are needed to inform clinicians regarding optimal practices for the treatment of patients with heart failure who suffer from depression or anxiety.

Randomized, controlled evaluation of short- and long-term benefits of heart failure disease management within a diverse provider network: the SPAN-CHF trial.

BACKGROUND: Several trials support the usefulness of disease management (DM) for improving clinical outcomes in heart failure (HF). Most of these studies are limited by small sample size; absence of concurrent, randomized controls; limited follow-up; restriction to urban academic centers; and low baseline use of effective medications. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective, randomized assessment of the effectiveness of HF DM delivered for 90 days across a diverse provider network in a heterogeneous population of 200 patients with high baseline use of approved HF pharmacotherapy. During a 90-day follow-up, patients randomized to DM experienced fewer hospitalizations for HF [primary end point, 0.55+/-0.15 per patient-year alive versus 1.14+/-0.22 per patient-year alive in control subjects; relative risk (RR), 0.48, P=0.027]. Intervention patients experienced reductions in hospital days related to a primary diagnosis of HF (4.3+/-0.4 versus 7.8+/-0.6 days hospitalized per patient-year; RR, 0.54; P<0.001), cardiovascular hospitalizations (0.81+/-0.19 versus 1.43+/-0.24 per patient-year alive; RR, 0.57; P=0.043), and days in hospital per patient-year alive for cardiovascular cause (RR, 0.64; P<0.001). Intervention patients showed a trend toward reduced all-cause hospitalizations and total hospital days. On long-term (mean, 283 days) follow-up, there was substantial attrition of the 3-month gain in outcomes, with sustained significant reduction only in days in hospital for cardiac cause. CONCLUSIONS: In a population with high background use of standard HF therapy, a DM intervention, uniformly delivered across varied clinical sites, produced significant short-term improvement in HF-related clinical outcomes. Longer-term benefit likely requires more active chronic intervention, even among patients who appear clinically stable.