Dataset Information

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed.

Objectives

The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods

In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee.

Results

Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT.

SUBMITTER: Bhatt AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10947307 | biostudies-literature | 2023 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

Bhatt Ankeet S AS Varshney Anubodh S AS Moscone Alea A Claggett Brian L BL Miao Zi Michael ZM Chatur Safia S Lopes Mathew S MS Ostrominski John W JW Pabon Maria A MA Unlu Ozan O Wang Xiaowen X Bernier Thomas D TD Buckley Leo F LF Cook Bryan B Eaton Rachael R Fiene Jillian J Kanaan Dareen D Kelly Julie J Knowles Danielle M DM Lupi Kenneth K Matta Lina S LS Pimentel Liriany Y LY Rhoten Megan N MN Malloy Rhynn R Ting Clara C Chhor Rosette R Guerin Joshua R JR Schissel Scott L SL Hoa Brenda B Lio Connie H CH Milewski Kristina K Espinosa Michelle E ME Liu Zhenzhen Z McHatton Ralph R Cunningham Jonathan W JW Jering Karola S KS Bertot John H JH Kaur Gurleen G Ahmad Adeel A Akash Muhammad M Davoudi Farideh F Hinrichsen Mona Z MZ Rabin David L DL Gordan Patrick L PL Roberts David J DJ Urma Daniela D McElrath Erin E EE Hinchey Emily D ED Choudhry Niteesh K NK Nekoui Mahan M Solomon Scott D SD Adler Dale S DS Vaduganathan Muthiah M

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20230306 17

<h4>Background</h4>Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed.<h4>Objectives</h4>The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).<h4>Methods</h4>In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a vi ...[more]

PMID: 36889612

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure (HF) patients with CRT devices are a vulnerable patient population during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic. It is important to develop innovative virtual care models to deliver multidisciplinary care while minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV2 exposure.ObjectiveWe aim to provide a description of how HF patients with CRT devices were assessed and managed in our virtual multidisciplinary clinic during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clinical outcomes between this group of patients seen in virtual clinic and a historical cohort followed by in-person multi-disciplinary clinic prior to the pandemic were compared.MethodThis is a retrospective cohort study of HF patients with CRT implants who were seen in the virtual multidisciplinary clinic from March 18th, 2020 to May 27th, 2020 (Virtual Visit Group, N = 43). A historical cohort of HF patients with CRT devices seen in the ReACT clinic in person during the same calendar time period in 2019 was used as a control group (In-Person Visit Group, N = 39). Both groups were followed until July 1st of the same calendar year (2020 or 2019) for clinical events. The primary outcome measure was a combined outcome of all-cause mortality and HF- or device-related hospitalizations during follow-up. The secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction, COVID-19 infection, and other cardiovascular events.ResultsIn the Virtual-Visit Group, 21 patients (48.8%) had their initial ReACT clinic visit (first visit after CRT implant) as a virtual visit; 22 patients (51.2%) had prior in-person ReACT clinic visits before the first virtual visit. During the virtual visits, 12 patients had either potential cardiac symptoms or significant device interrogation findings that required clinical intervention. In post-virtual clinic patient satisfaction survey, all 22 patients surveyed (100%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the overall experience of the virtual clinic, and every patient (100%) said they would like to use telemedicine again. During a median follow-up period of 82 days (interquartile range [IQR] 61-96 days), one patient died from pneumonia of unclear etiology at an outside hospital, without documentation of COVID-19 positivity. No patient was hospitalized for HF- or arrhythmia-related complications. No patient was diagnosed with COVID-19. Compared with the In-Person Visit Group, there was no significant increase in mortality or major cardiovascular events in the Virtual-Visit Group (2.3% versus 5.1%, P = 0.60).Conclusions and relevanceVirtual multidisciplinary care was feasible for HF patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy devices and achieved good patient satisfaction. Virtual care was not associated with short-term increase in adverse events for HF patients with CRT device during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This virtual care model could help promote the adoption of digital health methodology for high-risk patients with multiple cardiac comorbidities.

Project description:AimsPulmonary congestion (PC) expressed by residual lung ultrasound B-lines (LUS-BL) could exist in some discharged heart failure (HF) patients, which is a known determinant of poor outcomes. Detection efficacy for PC is suboptimal with widely used imaging modalities, like X-ray or echocardiography, while lung ultrasound (LUS) can sufficiently detect PC by visualizing LUS-BL. In this trial, we sought to evaluate the impact LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management post-discharge on outcome of HF patients discharged with residual LUS-BL up to 1 year after discharge. IMP-OUTCOME is a prospective, single-centre, single-blinded, randomized cohort study, which is designed to investigate if LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management post-discharge in patients with residual LUS-BL could improve the clinical outcome up to 1 year after discharge or not.Methods and resultsAfter receiving the standardized treatment of HF according to current guidelines, 318 patients with ≥3 LUS-BL assessed by LUS within 48 h before discharge will be randomly divided into the conventional HF management group and the LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management group at 1:1 ratio. Patient-related basic clinical data including sex, age, blood chemistry, imaging examination, and drug utilization will be obtained and analysed. LUS-BL will be assessed at 2 month interval post-discharge in both groups, but LUS-BL results will be enveloped in the conventional HF management group, and diuretics will be adjusted based on symptom and physical examination results with or without knowing the LUS-BL results. Echocardiography examination will be performed for all patients at 12 month post-discharge. The primary endpoint is consisted of the composite of readmission for worsening HF and all-cause death during follow up as indicated. The secondary endpoints consisted of the change in the New York Heart Association classification, Duke Activity Status Index, N terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide value, malignant arrhythmia event and 6 min walk distance at each designed follow up, echocardiography-derived left ventricular ejection fraction, and number of LUS-BL at 12 month post-discharge. Safety profile will be recorded and managed accordingly for all patients.ConclusionsThis trial will explore the impact of LUS-BL-guided intensive HF management on the outcome of discharged HF patients with residual LUS-BL up to 1 year after discharge in the era of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05035459.

Project description:AimsThe aim of this propensity score matched cohort study was to assess the outcomes of telehealth-guided outpatient management of acute heart failure (HF) in our virtual ward (HFVW) compared with hospitalized acute HF patients.Methods and resultsThis cohort study (May 2022-October 2023) assessed outcomes of telehealth-guided outpatient acute HF management using bolus intravenous furosemide in a HF-specialist VW. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed using logistic regression to adjust for potential differences in baseline patient characteristics between HFVW and standard care [Get With The Guidelines-HF score, clinical frailty score (CFS), Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI), NT-proBNP, and ejection fraction]. Clinical outcomes (re-hospitalizations and mortality) were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months versus standard care-SC (acute HF patients managed without telehealth in 2021). Five hundred fifty-four HFVW ADHF patients (age 73.1 ± 10.9 years; 46% female) were compared with 404 ADHF patients (74.2 ± 11.8; P = 0.15 and 49% female) in the standard care-SC cohort. After propensity score matching for baseline patient characteristics, re-hospitalizations were significantly lower in the HFVW compared with SC (1 month-HFVW 8.6% vs. SC-21.5%, P < 0.001; 3 months-21% vs. 30%, P = 0.003; 6 months-28% vs 41%, P < 0.001 and 12 months-47% vs. 57%, P = 0.005) and mortality was also lower at 1 month (5% vs. 13.7%; P < 0.001), 3 months (9.5% vs. 15%; P = 0.001), 6 months (15% vs. 21%; P = 0.03), and 12 months (20% vs. 26%; P = 0.04). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that compared with standard care, HFVW management was associated with lower odds of readmission (1-month odds ratio (OR) = 0.3 [95% Confidence Interval CI 0.2-0.5], P < 0.0001; 3 month OR = 0.15 [0.1-0.3], P < 0.0001; 6-month OR = 0.35 [0.2-0.6], P = 0.0002; 12-month OR = 0.25 [0.15-0.4], P ≤ 0.001 and mortality (1-month OR = 0.26 [0.14-0.48], P < 0.0001; 3-month OR = 0.11 [0.04-0.27], P < 0.0001; 6-month OR = 0.35, [0.2; 0.61], P = 0.0002; 12-month OR = 0.6 [0.48; 0.73], P = 0.03. Higher GWTG-HF score independently predicted increased odds of re-hospitalization (1-month OR = 1.2 [1.1-1.3], P < 0.001; 3-month OR = 1.5 [1.37; 1.64], P < 0.0001; 6-month OR = 1.3 [1.2-1.4], P < 0.0001; 12-month OR = 1.1 [1.05-1.2], P = 0.03) as well as mortality (1-month OR = 1.21 [1.1-1.3], P < 0.0001; 3-month OR = 1.3 [1.2-1.4], P < 0.0001; 6-month OR = 1.2 [1.1-1.3], P < 0.0001; 12-month OR = 1.3 [1.1-1.7], P = 0.02). Similarly higher CFS also independently predicted increased odds of re-hospitalizations (1-month OR = 1.9 [1.5-2.4], P < 0.0001; 3-month OR = 1.8 [1.3-2.4], P = 0.0003; 6-month OR = 1.4 [1.1-1.8], P = 0.015; 12-month OR 1.9 [1.2-3], P = 0.01]) and mortality (1-month OR = 2.1 [1.6-2.8], P < 0.0001; 3-month OR = 1.8 [1.2-2.6], P = 0.006; 6-month OR = 2.34 [1.51-5.6], P = 0.0001; 12-month OR = 2.6 [1.6-7], P = 0.02). Increased daily step count while on HFVW independently predicted reduced odds of re-hospitalizations (1-month OR = 0.85[0.7-0.9], P = 0.005), 3-month OR = 0.95 [0.93-0.98], P = 0.003 and 1-month mortality (OR = 0.85 [0.7-0.95], P = 0.01), whereas CCI predicted adverse 12-month outcomes (OR = 1.2 [1.1-1.4], P = 0.03).ConclusionsTelehealth-guided specialist HFVW management for ADHF may offer a safe and efficacious alternative to hospitalization in suitable patients. Daily step count in HFVW can help predict risk of short-term adverse clinical outcomes.

Dataset Information

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Virtual Care Team Guided Management of Patients With Heart Failure During Hospitalization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets