Referral for specialist follow-up and its association with post-discharge mortality among patients with systolic heart failure (from the National Heart Failure Audit for England and Wales)

For patients admitted with worsening heart failure, early follow-up after discharge is recommended. Whether outcomes can be improved when follow-up is done by cardiologists is uncertain. We aimed to determine the association between cardiology follow-up and risk of death for patients with heart failure discharged from hospital. Using data from the National Heart Failure Audit (England & Wales), we investigated the effect of referral to cardiology follow-up on 30-day and one-year mortality in 68 772 patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFREF) discharged from 185 hospitals between 2007 to 2013. The primary analyses used instrumental variable analysis complemented by hierarchical logistic and propensity matched models. At the hospital level, rates of referral to cardiologists varied from 6% to 96%. The median odds ratio (OR) for referral to cardiologist was 2.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1, 2.5), suggesting that, on average, the odds of a patient being referred for cardiologist follow-up after discharge differed approximately 2.3 times from one randomly selected hospital to another one. Based on the proportion of patients (per region) referred for cardiology follow-up, referral for cardiology follow-up was associated with lower 30-day (OR 0.70; CI 0.55, 0.89) and one-year mortality (OR 0.81; CI 0.68, 0.95) compared with no plans for cardiology follow-up (i.e., standard follow-up done by family doctors). Results from hierarchical logistic models and propensity matched models were consistent (30-day mortality OR 0.66; CI 0.61, 0.72 and 0.66; CI 0.58, 0.76 for hierarchical and propensity matched models, respectively). For patients with HFREF admitted to hospital with worsening symptoms, referral to cardiology services for follow-up after discharge is strongly associated with reduced mortality, both early and late

Does rhythm matter in acute heart failure? An insight from the British Society for Heart Failure National Audit

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A nationwide, population‐based study on specialized care for acute heart failure throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic

Aims - The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of care for patients with heart failure (HF), leading to fewer HF hospitalizations and increased mortality. However, nationwide data on quality of care and long-term outcomes across the pandemic are scarce.Methods and results - We used data from the National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA) linked to national records for hospitalization and deaths. We compared pre-COVID (2018–2019), COVID (2020), and late/post-COVID (2021–2022) periods. Data for 227 250 patients admitted to hospital with HF were analysed and grouped according to the admission year and the presence of HF with (HFrEF) or without reduced ejection fraction (non-HFrEF). The median age at admission was 81 years (interquartile range 72–88), 55% were men (n = 125 975), 87% were of white ethnicity (n = 102 805), and 51% had HFrEF (n = 116 990). In-hospital management and specialized cardiology care were maintained throughout the pandemic with an increasing percentage of patients discharged on disease-modifying medications over time (p &lt; 0.001). Long-term outcomes improved over time (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–0.95, p &lt; 0.001), mainly driven by a reduction in cardiovascular death. Receiving specialized cardiology care was associated with better long-term outcomes both for those who had HFrEF (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.77–0.82, p &lt; 0.001) and for those who had non-HFrEF (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.85–0.90, p &lt; 0.001).Conclusions - Despite the disruption of healthcare systems, the clinical characteristics of patients admitted with HF were similar and the overall standard of care was maintained throughout the pandemic. Long-term survival of patients hospitalized with HF continued to improve after COVID-19, especially for HFrEF.<br/

Validation of U.S. mortality prediction models for hospitalized heart failure in the United Kingdom and Japan: Validation of risk models in decompensated heart failure

Aims: Prognostic models for hospitalised heart failure (HHF) were developed predominantly for patients of European origin in the United States of America; it is unclear whether they perform similarly in other health-care systems or for different ethnicities. We sought to validate published prediction models for HHF in the United Kingdom (UK) & Japan.Methods and Results: Patients in the UK (894) and Japan (3,158) were prospectively enrolled and similar in terms of sex (~60% men) and median age (~77 years). Models predicted that British patients would have a higher mortality than Japanese, which was indeed true both for in-hospital [4.8% vs 2.5%] and 180-day [20.7% vs 9.5%] mortality. The model c-statistics for the published/derivation [range 0.70-0.76] and Japanese [range 0.75-0.77] cohorts were similar and higher than for the UK [0.62-0.75] but models consistently over-estimated mortality in Japan. For in-hospital mortality, OPTIMIZE-HF performed best, providing similar discrimination in published/derivation, UK and Japanese cohorts [c-indices: 0.75 (0.74-0.77); 0.75 (0.68 - 0.81) and 0.77 (0.70 - 0.83)], and least over-estimated mortality in Japan. For 180-day mortality, the cstatistics for ASCEND-HF were similar in published/derivation [0.70] and UK [0.69 (0.64 - 0.74)] cohorts but higher in Japan [0.75 (0.71 - 0.79)]; calibration was good in the UK but again over-estimated mortality in Japan.Conclusion: Calibration of published prediction models appear moderately accurate and unbiased when applied to British patients but consistently overestimate mortality in Japan. Identifying the reason why patients in Japan have a better than predicted prognosis is of great interest

Mortality after admission for heart failure in the UK compared with Japan

Objective Mortality amongst patients hospitalised for heart failure (HHF) in Western and Asian countries may differ, but this has not been investigated using individual patient-level data (IPLD). We sought to remedy this through rigorous statistical analysis of HHF registries and variable selection from a systematic literature review.Methods and results IPLD from registries of HHF in Japan (n=3781) and the UK (n=894) were obtained. A systematic literature review identified 23 models for predicting outcome of HHF. Five variables appearing in 10 or more reports were strongly related to prognosis (systolic blood pressure, serum sodium concentration, age, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine). To compare mortality in the UK and Japan, variables were imputed in a propensity model using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and IPTW with logistic regression (doubly robust IPTW). Overall, patients in the UK were sicker and in-patient and post-discharge mortalities were greater, suggesting that the threshold for hospital admission was higher. Covariate-adjusted in-hospital mortality was similar in the UK and Japan (IPTW OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.86), but 180-day postdischarge mortality was substantially higher in the UK (doubly robust IPTW OR: 2.33, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.43).Conclusions Despite robust methods to adjust for differences in patient characteristics and disease severity, HHF patients in the UK have roughly twice the mortality at 180 days compared with those in Japan. Similar analyses should be done using other data sets and in other countries to determine the consistency of these findings and identify factors that might inform healthcare policy and improve outcomes

Evaluation of the causes of sex disparity in heart failure trials

OBJECTIVES: Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity in women. Despite this, even in contemporary research, female patients are poorly represented in trials. This study aimed to explore reasons behind the sex disparity in heart failure (HF) trials. METHODS: HF trials published in seven high-impact clinical journals (impact factor >20), between 2000 and 2020, were identified. Trials with over 300 participants of both sexes were included. Large HF registries, as well as population statistics, were also identified using the same criteria. RESULTS: We identified 146 HF trials, which included 248 620 patients in total. The median proportion of female patients was 25.8%, with the lowest proportions seen in trials enrolling patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (17.9%), severe systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%) (21.4%) and those involving an invasive procedure (21.1%). The highest proportion of women was seen in trials assessing HF with preserved LVEF (51.6%), as well as trials including older participants (40.5%). Significant differences were seen between prevalence of female trial participants and population prevalence in all LVEF categories (25.8% vs 49.0%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A significant sex disparity was identified in HF trials, most visible in trials assessing patients with severely reduced LVEF and ischaemic aetiology. This is likely due to a complex interplay between enrolment bias and biological variation. Furthermore, the degree of both these aspects may vary according to trial type. Going forward, we should encourage all HF trials to appraise their recruitment log and suggest reasons for any reported sex disparity

Variation in hospital performance for heart failure management in the National Heart Failure Audit for England and Wales

Objective: Investigation of variations in provider performance and its determinants may help inform strategies for improving patient outcomes. Methods: We used the National Heart Failure Audit comprising 68 772 patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ( HFREF ), admitted to 185 hospitals in England and Wales ( 2007–2013 ). We investigated hospital adherence to three recommended key performance measures ( KPMs ) for inhospital care ( ACE inhibitors ( ACE-Is ) or angiotensin receptor blockers ( ARBs ) on discharge, β-blockers on discharge and referral to specialist follow-up ) individually and as a composite performance score. Hierarchical regression models were used to investigate hospital-level variation. Results: Hospital-level variation in adherence to composite KPM ranged from 50% to 97% ( median 79% ), but after adjustments for patient characteristics and year of admission, only 8% ( 95% CI 7% to 10% ) of this variation was attributable to variations in hospital features. Similarly, hospital prescription rates for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker showed low adjusted hospital-attributable variations ( 7% CI 6% to 9% and 6% CI 5% to 8%, for ACE-I/ARB and β-blocker, respectively ). Referral to specialist follow-up, however, showed larger variations ( median 81%; range; 20%, 100% ) with 26% of this being attributable to hospital-level differences ( CI 22% to 31% ). Conclusion: Only a small proportion of hospital variation in medication prescription after discharge was attributable to hospital-level features. This suggests that differences in hospital practices are not a major determinant of observed variations in prescription of investigated medications and outcomes. Future healthcare delivery efforts should consider evaluation and improvement of more ambitious KPMs

The diagnostic accuracy of plasma BNP and NTproBNP in patients referred from primary care with suspected heart failure: results of the UK natriuretic peptide study

Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the measurement of plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NTproBNP) in patients referred by their general practitioners (GPs) with symptoms suggestive of heart failure. Additionally, to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the resting 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) with that of the peptides. Design: A diagnostic accuracy study. Setting: Rapid-access heart failure clinics in five hospitals. Participants: 306 patients referred by their GPs with suspected heart failure. Main outcome measures: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) and positive and negative likelihood ratios for BNP, NTproBNP and the ECG for the diagnosis of heart failure. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves for the two natriuretic peptides. Results: The diagnosis of heart failure was confirmed in 104 (34%) patients. The area under the ROC curve was 0.84 [95% CI 0.79−0.89] for BNP and 0.85 [0.81−0.90] for NTproBNP. At the manufacturers' recommended decision cut-points, NTproBNP provided a higher NPV (0.97) than BNP (0.87), but at lower PPV (0.44 versus 0.59). An abnormal ECG did not add any further predictive value to that of NTproBNP. Conclusions: We have confirmed the value of the measurement of plasma BNP or NTproBNP as a ‘rule-out’ test for heart failure in patients currently referred by GPs to rapid access diagnostic clinics. A simple classification of the 12-lead ECG into ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ adds little value to ruling out heart failure in these circumstances. Further work is necessary to establish the best decision cut-points for use in clinical practice.</p

The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis

Background: The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based cardiac rehabilitation intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aims of this study were to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based cardiac rehabilitation to usual care compared with usual care alone in patients with HFrEF. Design and methods: A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/2016 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results: In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.23 and an increased mean cost of £400 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of £1720. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 78% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Results were similar for home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters. Conclusions: Our cost-utility analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF