Postdischarge assessment after a heart failure hospitalization: the next step forward.

Heart failure (HF) is the most frequent cause of hospitalization for patients >65 years of age. Mortality during the initial hospitalization ranges from 6% to 7% in Europe to 3% to 4% in the United States, depending on the length of hospital stay. Poor outcomes have universally been shown after discharge, with 60- to 90-day mortality rates of 5% to 15% and hospital readmission rates of 30%. Whereas the prognosis of patients with chronic HF has improved in recent years, there has been no change in the high risk of death or rehospitalization after an HF hospitalization. In addition to the lack of new therapies, incomplete relief from fluid overload, insufficient patient education, lack of implementation of evidence-based therapies, and poor postdischarge follow-up planning are among the main causes of these poor outcomes. A better assessment of the patient at the time of discharge and in the following weeks seems therefore as mandatory. This article outlines the main components of such a program. These include the personnel who should be involved, i.e. HF specialists and cardiologists versus non-specialists, the variables which should be assessed, i.e. those related with congestion and fluid overload, the times when they should be assessed, as the phase at highest risk is immediately after discharge from hospital, and, finally, the aims of such programs. We retain that an improvement of post-discharge follow-up will be able to significantly improve patients’ outcomes with a rate of success comparable, if not greater, to that which can be achieved by new therapies

A cluster randomized controlled trial of a clinical pathway for hospital treatment of heart failure: study design and population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The hospital treatment of heart failure frequently does not follow published guidelines, potentially contributing to the high morbidity, mortality and economic cost of this disorder. Consequently the development of clinical pathways has the potential to reduce the current variability in care, enhance guideline adherence, and improve outcomes for patients. Despite enthusiasm and diffusion, the widespread acceptance of clinical pathways remain questionable because very little prospective controlled data demonstrated their effectiveness. The Experimental Prospective Study on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Implementation of Clinical Pathways was designed in order to conduct a rigorous evaluation of clinical pathways in hospital treatment of acute heart failure. The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of clinical pathways for hospital treatment of heart failure in Italian hospitals.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Two-arm, cluster-randomized trial. 14 community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (clinical pathway: appropriate use of practice guidelines and supplies of drugs and ancillary services, new organization and procedures, patient education, etc.) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). 424 patients sample (212 in each group), 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure is in-hospital mortality. We will also analyze the impact of the clinical pathways comparing the length and the appropriateness of the stay, the rate of unscheduled readmissions, the customers' satisfaction and the costs treating the patients with the pathways and with the current practice along all the observation period. The quality of the care will be assessed by monitoring the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during hospital stay and by measuring key quality indicators at discharge.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper examines the design of the evaluation of a complex intervention. Since clinical pathways are made up of various interconnecting parts we have chosen the cluster-randomized controlled trial because is widely accepted as the most reliable method of determining effectiveness when measuring cost-effectiveness in real practice.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID [NCT00519038]</p

Temporary epicardial cardiac resynchronisation versus conventional right ventricular pacing after cardiac surgery: study protocol for a randomised control trial

Background: Heart failure patients with stable angina, acute coronary syndromes and valvular heart disease may benefit from revascularisation and/or valve surgery. However, the mortality rate is increased- 5-30%. Biventricular pacing using temporary epicardial wires after surgery is a potential mechanism to improve cardiac function and clinical endpoints. Method/design: A multi-centred, prospective, randomised, single-blinded, intervention-control trial of temporary biventricular pacing versus standard pacing. Patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease or both, an ejection fraction ≤ 35% and a conventional indication for cardiac surgery will be recruited from 2 cardiac centres. Baseline investigations will include: an electrocardiogram to confirm sinus rhythm and measure QRS duration; echocardiogram to evaluate left ventricular function and markers of mechanical dyssynchrony; dobutamine echocardiogram for viability and blood tests for renal function and biomarkers of myocardial injury- troponin T and brain naturetic peptide. Blood tests will be repeated at 18, 48 and 72 hours. The principal exclusions will be subjects with permanent atrial arrhythmias, permanent pacemakers, infective endocarditis or end-stage renal disease. After surgery, temporary pacing wires will be attached to the postero-lateral wall of the left ventricle, the right atrium and right ventricle and connected to a triple chamber temporary pacemaker. Subjects will be randomised to receive either temporary biventricular pacing or standard pacing (atrial inhibited pacing or atrial-synchronous right ventricular pacing) for 48 hours. The primary endpoint will be the duration of level 3 care. In brief, this is the requirement for invasive ventilation, multi-organ support or more than one inotrope/vasoconstrictor. Haemodynamic studies will be performed at baseline, 6, 18 and 24 hours after surgery using a pulmonary arterial catheter. Measurements will be taken in the following pacing modes: atrial inhibited; right ventricular only; atrial synchronous-right ventricular; atrial synchronous-left ventricular and biventricular pacing. Optimisation of the atrioventricular and interventricular delay will be performed in the biventricular pacing group at 18 hours. The effect of biventricular pacing on myocardial injury, post operative arrhythmias and renal function will also be quantified