Marcia E. Leventhal

Palliative care in heart failure: a position statement from the palliative care workshop of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology

Heart failure is a serious condition and equivalent to malignant disease in terms of symptom burden and mortality. At this moment only a comparatively small number of heart failure patients receive specialist palliative care. Heart failure patients may have generic palliative care needs, such as refractory multifaceted symptoms, communication and decision making issues and the requirement for family support. The Advanced Heart Failure Study Group of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology organized a workshop to address the issue of palliative care in heart failure to increase awareness of the need for palliative care. Additional objectives included improving the accessibility and quality of palliative care for heart failure patients and promoting the development of heart failure‐orientated palliative care services across Europe. This document represents a synthesis of the presentations and discussion during the workshop and describes recommendations in the area of delivery of quality care to patients and families, education, treatment coordination, research and policy.

Differences in psychosocial and behavioral profiles between heart failure patients admitted to cardiology and geriatric wards

Heart failure represents a growing epidemic, primarily in the elderly. Development and implementation of management programs designed for use in daily clinical practice remains a major challenge.

Complexity in Caring for an Ageing Heart Failure Population: Concomitant Chronic Conditions and Age Related Impairments

The complexity of caring for the ageing heart failure (HF) population is further complicated by concomitant chronic conditions (i.e., polypharmacy, depression), age related impairments (i.e., hearing, visual and cognitive impairments, impairments in activities of daily living (ADL/IADL), and other issues (e.g., health illiteracy, lack of social support). This paper provides an overview of these risk factors, outlines how they individually and in interplay endanger favourable outcome by putting patients at risk for poor self-management. Moreover, suggestions are made on how these issues could be addressed and integrated in heart failure management by applying gerontological care principles in caring for the ageing heart failure population.

Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure? An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Background— Self-management interventions are widely implemented in the care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, trials show inconsistent results, and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in patients with HF and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. Methods and Results— A systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data from 20 studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed with the use of mixed-effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models, including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced the risk of time to the combined end point of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.00–0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on the number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years of age (mean, 0.70 versus 5.35 days; interaction P=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.06), whereas in patients with moderate/severe depression, self-management reduced survival (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06–1.83, interaction P=0.01). Conclusions— This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death and HF-related hospitalization alone and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of patients with HF, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

What Are Effective Program Characteristics of Self-Management Interventions in Patients With Heart Failure? An Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND To identify those characteristics of self-management interventions in patients with heart failure (HF) that are effective in influencing health-related quality of life, mortality, and hospitalizations. METHODS AND RESULTS Randomized trials on self-management interventions conducted between January 1985 and June 2013 were identified and individual patient data were requested for meta-analysis. Generalized mixed effects models and Cox proportional hazard models including frailty terms were used to assess the relation between characteristics of interventions and health-related outcomes. Twenty randomized trials (5624 patients) were included. Longer intervention duration reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-0.999 per month increase in duration), risk of HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-0.99), and HF-related hospitalization at 6 months (risk ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.995). Although results were not consistent across outcomes, interventions comprising standardized training of interventionists, peer contact, log keeping, or goal-setting skills appeared less effective than interventions without these characteristics. CONCLUSION No specific program characteristics were consistently associated with better effects of self-management interventions, but longer duration seemed to improve the effect of self-management interventions on several outcomes. Future research using factorial trial designs and process evaluations is needed to understand the working mechanism of specific program characteristics of self-management interventions in HF patients.

Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure?CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Background— Self-management interventions are widely implemented in the care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, trials show inconsistent results, and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in patients with HF and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. Methods and Results— A systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data from 20 studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed with the use of mixed-effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models, including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced the risk of time to the combined end point of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.00–0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on the number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years of age (mean, 0.70 versus 5.35 days; interaction P=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.06), whereas in patients with moderate/severe depression, self-management reduced survival (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06–1.83, interaction P=0.01). Conclusions— This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death and HF-related hospitalization alone and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of patients with HF, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

Do Self-Management Interventions Work in Patients With Heart Failure?CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE

Background— Self-management interventions are widely implemented in the care for patients with heart failure (HF). However, trials show inconsistent results, and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in patients with HF and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. Methods and Results— A systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data from 20 studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed with the use of mixed-effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models, including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced the risk of time to the combined end point of HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69–0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.00–0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on the number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years of age (mean, 0.70 versus 5.35 days; interaction P=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.69–1.06), whereas in patients with moderate/severe depression, self-management reduced survival (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06–1.83, interaction P=0.01). Conclusions— This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death and HF-related hospitalization alone and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of patients with HF, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

Effectiveness of a nurse intervention on the congruence of general practitioner to cardiologist's medication recommendation in heart failure after hospital discharge

Results: Themean age (SD) was 60 (±13) years and showed no changes over time. Additionally, the length of stay in the CCU (3 days) remained stable. The length of total hospital stay gradually decreased from 12 to 6 days. The number of patients with stable angina decreased from 25% to b5%, while patients with acute coronary syndromes showed a steep increase. In the first decade we observed an increase in invasive hemodynamic monitoring (from 16% to 23%), followed by a decrease to 8% over the last 4 years. The use of an Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) increased from 2% to 8%, and mechanical ventilation from 5% to 17%. Since the introduction of the Coolgard® in 2004 on the CCU, this intervention was used in 5% of all admissions. Furthermore, we observed the rice and fall of thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and from 1995 onwards, a steep increase in primary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions (0% to 84%). Mortality varied over the last two decades between 6% and 10%.

1503 Estimating Sample Size of Eligible Patient for a Heart Failure RCT: Discrepancy Between Literature Data and Actual Recruited Patients in the SWIM-HF Trial

1503 Estimating sample size of eligible patient for a heart failure RCT: discrepancy between literature data and actual recruited patients in the SWIM-HF trial Antoinette Conca, Marcia Leventhal, Arlette Bernasconi, Brigitte Jenni, Lyn Lindpainter, Nicole Zigan, Evelyn Haegi-Rieder, Hans Peter Brunner-La Rocca, Peter Buser, Stefano Muzzarelli, Sabina De Geest Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, CH; University Hospital of Basel, CH Corresponding author. Sabina De Geest, RN, PhD, University of Basel, Institute of Nursing Science, Bernoullistr. 28, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland. E-mail: sabina.degeest@ unibas.ch