Usefulness of a personalized algorithm-based discharge checklist in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure.
Discharge checklist
Heart failure
Journal
ESC heart failure
ISSN: 2055-5822
Titre abrégé: ESC Heart Fail
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101669191
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
18
11
2019
revised:
29
11
2019
accepted:
08
12
2019
pubmed:
23
4
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
23
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of a personalized discharge checklist (PCL) based on simple baseline characteristics on mortality, readmission for heart failure (HF), and quality of care in patients hospitalized for acute HF. We designed an algorithm to generate PCL, based on 2016 HF European Society of Cardiology Guidelines and the screening of common comorbidities in elderly HF patients. We prospectively included 139 patients hospitalized for HF from May 2018 to October 2018. A PCL was fulfilled for each patient at admission and 24 to 48 hours before the planned discharge. A control cohort of 182 consecutive patients was retrospectively included from May 2017 to October 2017. The primary composite endpoint was mortality or readmission for HF at 6 months. The secondary endpoints were mortality, readmission for HF, and quality of care (evidence-based medications, management of HF comorbidities, and planned care plan). There was no difference among baseline characteristics between PCL and control cohorts; mean age was 78.1 ± 12.2 vs. 79.0 ± 12.5 years old (P = 0.46) and 61 patients (43.9%) vs. 63 (34.6%) had HF with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40% (P = 0.24). During the 6 month follow-up period, 59 patients (42.4%) reached the primary endpoint in the PCL cohort vs. 92 patients (50.5%) in the control cohort [hazard ratio (HR): 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.57-1.09), P = 0.15]. Subgroup analysis including only patients with either altered (<40%) or mid-range or preserved (≥40%) LVEF showed no significant difference among groups. There was a non-significant trend toward a reduction in HF readmission rate in the PCL group [38 patients (27.3%) vs. 64 patients (35.2%), HR: 0.73, 95%CI (0.49-1.09), P = 0.13]. There was no difference regarding survival or the use of evidence-based medications. A higher proportion of patients were screened and treated for iron and vitamin D deficiencies (53.2% vs. 35.7%, P < 0.01 and 73.4% vs. 29.7%, P < 0.01, respectively), as well as malnutrition supplemented in the PCL group. There was a higher referral to HF follow-up programme in the PCL group but not to telemedicine or cardiac rehabilitation programs. In this preliminary study, the use of a PCL did not improve outcomes at 6 months in patients hospitalized for acute HF. There was a non-significant trend towards a reduction in HF readmission rate in the PCL group. In addition, the management of HF comorbidities was significantly improved by PCL with a better referral to follow-up programme. A multicentre study is warranted to assess the usefulness of a simple costless personalized checklist in a large HF patients' population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32320135
doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12604
pmc: PMC7261525
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1217-1223Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
Références
Eur Heart J. 2015 Mar 14;36(11):657-68
pubmed: 25176939
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jul 14;37(27):2129-2200
pubmed: 27206819
Circulation. 2016 Apr 26;133(17):1704-7
pubmed: 27143153
Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Feb;20(2):345-354
pubmed: 28849606
Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 Aug - Sep;112(8-9):494-501
pubmed: 31353278
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011 Jan 1;4(1):53-9
pubmed: 21156879
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Mar 1;119(5):760-769
pubmed: 28109560
Maturitas. 2016 Nov;93:89-99
pubmed: 27125943
ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Jun;7(3):1217-1223
pubmed: 32320135
Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Feb;20(2):304-314
pubmed: 29082629