Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patient journey: hospitalizations as window of opportunity for extra-pulmonary intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hospitalizations due to exacerbation of chronic pulmonary disease (COPD) are a major burden for patient and healthcare Extra-pulmonary needs and resulting interventions are poorly FINDINGS: COPD induces nutritional issues, body composition changes and patient exercise capacity. The COPD patient journey can be accelerated exacerbations during which disease-related detrimental factors such as inflammation, hypoxia, inactivity, and glucocorticosteroid treatment intensify, which acutely and often irreversibly worsens patient Specific needs during exacerbations reach beyond the respiratory system, clinicians should comprehensively evaluate patients and identify potent feasible metabolic and anabolic intervention targets. General and nutritional support appear feasible and with potential to cover for the bodily requirements during exacerbation. Adjunctive physical exercise or neuromuscular electrical stimulation may prevent the muscle loss. Hospitalizations should be considered as a window of opportunity for patient assessment and implementation of tailored extra-pulmonary strategies with long-term implications. Nutritional assessment and well as physical exercise appear promising but should be investigated in adequately designed and conducted trials

Methods and rationale of the DISCOVER CKD global observational study

Background: Real-world data for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), specifically pertaining to clinical management, metabolic control, treatment patterns, quality of life (QoL) and dietary patterns, are limited. Understanding these gaps using real-world, routine care data will improve our understanding of the challenges and consequences faced by patients with CKD, and will facilitate the long-term goal of improving their management and prognosis. Methods: DISCOVER CKD follows an enriched hybrid study design, with both retrospective and prospective patient cohorts, integrating primary and secondary data from patients with CKD from China, Italy, Japan, Sweden, the UK and the USA. Data will be prospectively captured over a 3-year period from >1000 patients with CKD who will be followed up for at least 1 year via electronic case report form entry during routine clinical visits and also via a mobile/tablet-based application, enabling the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In-depth interviews will be conducted in a subset of ∼100 patients. Separately, secondary data will be retrospectively captured from >2 000 000 patients with CKD, extracted from existing datasets and registries. Results: The DISCOVER CKD program captures and will report on patient demographics, biomarker and laboratory measurements, medical histories, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, medications, dietary patterns, physical activity and PROs (including QoL and qualitative interviews). Conclusions: The DISCOVER CKD program will provide contemporary real-world insight to inform clinical practice and improve our understanding of the epidemiology and clinical and economic burden of CKD, as well as determinants of clinical outcomes and PROs from a range of geographical regions in a real-world CKD setting

Process evaluation for complex interventions in primary care: understanding trials using the normalization process model

Background: the Normalization Process Model is a conceptual tool intended to assist in understanding the factors that affect implementation processes in clinical trials and other evaluations of complex interventions. It focuses on the ways that the implementation of complex interventions is shaped by problems of workability and integration.Method: in this paper the model is applied to two different complex trials: (i) the delivery of problem solving therapies for psychosocial distress, and (ii) the delivery of nurse-led clinics for heart failure treatment in primary care.Results: application of the model shows how process evaluations need to focus on more than the immediate contexts in which trial outcomes are generated. Problems relating to intervention workability and integration also need to be understood. The model may be used effectively to explain the implementation process in trials of complex interventions.Conclusion: the model invites evaluators to attend equally to considering how a complex intervention interacts with existing patterns of service organization, professional practice, and professional-patient interaction. The justification for this may be found in the abundance of reports of clinical effectiveness for interventions that have little hope of being implemented in real healthcare setting

'Time is prognosis' in heart failure: time-to-treatment initiation as a modifiable risk factor.

In heart failure (HF), acute decompensation can occur quickly and unexpectedly because of worsening of chronic HF or to new-onset HF diagnosed for the first time ('de novo'). Patients presenting with acute HF (AHF) have a poor prognosis comparable with those with acute myocardial infarction, and any delay of treatment initiation is associated with worse outcomes. Recent HF guidelines and recommendations have highlighted the importance of a timely diagnosis and immediate treatment for patients presenting with AHF to decrease disease progression and improve prognosis. However, based on the available data, there is still uncertainty regarding the optimal 'time-to-treatment' effect in AHF. Furthermore, the immediate post-worsening HF period plays an important role in clinical outcomes in HF patients after hospitalization and is known as the 'vulnerable phase' characterized by high risk of readmission and early death. Early and intensive treatment for HF patients in the 'vulnerable phase' might be associated with lower rates of early readmission and mortality. Additionally, in the chronic stable HF outpatient, treatments are often delayed or not initiated when symptoms are stable, ignoring the risk for adverse outcomes such as sudden death. Consequently, there is a dire need to better identify HF patients during hospitalization and after discharge and treating them adequately to improve their prognosis. HF is an urgent clinical scenario along all its stages and disease conditions. Therefore, time plays a significant role throughout the entire patient's journey. Therapy should be optimized as soon as possible, because this is beneficial regardless of severity or duration of HF. Time lavished before treatment initiation is recognized as important modifiable risk factor in HF

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on frailty in patients with heart failure.

Heart failure (HF) and frailty are two distinct yet commonly associated conditions. The interplay between the two conditions is complex, due to overlaps in underlying mechanisms, symptoms and prognosis. The assessment of frailty in patients with HF is crucial, as it is associated with both unfavourable outcomes and reduced access and tolerance to treatments. However, to date a consensus definition of frailty in patients with HF remains lacking and the need for a validated assessment score, for identifying those HF patients with frailty, is high and timely. This position paper proposes a new definition of frailty for use by healthcare professionals in the setting of HF and creates a foundation for the design of a tailored and validated score for this common condition

Pre-hospital management protocols and perceived difficulty in diagnosing acute heart failure

Aim To illustrate the pre-hospital management arsenals and protocols in different EMS units, and to estimate the perceived difficulty of diagnosing suspected acute heart failure (AHF) compared with other common pre-hospital conditions. Methods and results A multinational survey included 104 emergency medical service (EMS) regions from 18 countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic arsenals related to AHF management were reported for each type of EMS unit. The prevalence and contents of management protocols for common medical conditions treated pre-hospitally was collected. The perceived difficulty of diagnosing AHF and other medical conditions by emergency medical dispatchers and EMS personnel was interrogated. Ultrasound devices and point-of-care testing were available in advanced life support and helicopter EMS units in fewer than 25% of EMS regions. AHF protocols were present in 80.8% of regions. Protocols for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, chest pain, and dyspnoea were present in 95.2, 80.8, and 76.0% of EMS regions, respectively. Protocolized diagnostic actions for AHF management included 12-lead electrocardiogram (92.1% of regions), ultrasound examination (16.0%), and point-of-care testings for troponin and BNP (6.0 and 3.5%). Therapeutic actions included supplementary oxygen (93.2%), non-invasive ventilation (80.7%), intravenous furosemide, opiates, nitroglycerine (69.0, 68.6, and 57.0%), and intubation 71.5%. Diagnosing suspected AHF was considered easy to moderate by EMS personnel and moderate to difficult by emergency medical dispatchers (without significant differences between de novo and decompensated heart failure). In both settings, diagnosis of suspected AHF was considered easier than pulmonary embolism and more difficult than ST-elevation myocardial infarction, asthma, and stroke. Conclusions The prevalence of AHF protocols is rather high but the contents seem to vary. Difficulty of diagnosing suspected AHF seems to be moderate compared with other pre-hospital conditions

Structured chronic primary care and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure

Background: Structured care is proposed as a lever for improving care for patients with chronic conditions. The purpose of this study was to explore the associations of structured care characteristics, derived from the Chronic Care Model, with health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and optimal clinical management in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients in primary care, as well as the association between optimal management and HRQOL. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study using multi-level random-coefficient analyses of a representative sample of 357 patients diagnosed with CHF from 42 primary care practices in the Netherlands. We combined individual medical record data with patient and physician questionnaires. Results: There was large variation in the levels and presence of structured care elements. A 91% of physicians indicated that next appointments for CHF patients were made immediately after visits, while 11% indicated that reminders on CHF management were periodically received in their practice. Few associations were found between the organizational characteristics and optimal treatment or HRQOL. Optimal pharmacological treatment related to better quality of life (β = -11.5, P < .0001). Also, more lifestyle advice was given in practices with an appointment system allowing contact with more than one professional during the encounter (β = 1.0, P = .04). Conclusion: HRQOL and treatment quality in CHF patients were not consistently associated with characteristics of structured care in primary care practices

Is heart failure misdiagnosed in hospitalized patients with preserved ejection fraction? From the European Society of Cardiology - Heart Failure Association EURObservational Research Programme Heart Failure Long-Term Registry.

AIMS: In hospitalized patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), the aims of this study were (i) to assess the proportion meeting the 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HFpEF criteria and (ii) to compare patients with restrictive/pseudonormal mitral inflow pattern (MIP) vs. patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included hospitalized participants of the ESC-Heart Failure Association (HFA) EURObservational Research Programme (EORP) HF Long-Term Registry who had echocardiogram with ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% during index hospitalization. As no data on e', E/e' and left ventricular (LV) mass index were gathered in the registry, the 2016 ESC HFpEF definition was modified as follows: elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (≥100 pg/mL for acute HF) and/or N-terminal pro-BNP (≥300 pg/mL) and at least one of the echocardiographic criteria: (i) presence of LV hypertrophy (yes/no), (ii) left atrial volume index (LAVI) of >34 mL/m2 ), or (iii) restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. Next, all patients were divided into four groups: (i) patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP on echocardiography [i.e. with presumably elevated left atrial (LA) pressure], (ii) patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure), (iii) atrial fibrillation (AF) group, and (iv) 'grey area' (no consistent description of MIP despite no report of AF). Of 6365 hospitalized patients, 1848 (29%) had EF ≥ 50%. Natriuretic peptides were assessed in 28%, LV hypertrophy in 92%, LAVI in 13%, and MIP in 67%. The 2016 ESC HFpEF criteria could be assessed in 27% of the 1848 patients and, if assessed, were met in 52%. Of the 1848 patients, 19% had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP, 43% had MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal, 18% had AF and 20% were grey area. There were no differences in long-term all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, or all-cause hospitalizations or HF rehospitalizations between the four groups. Despite fewer non-cardiac comorbidities reported at baseline, patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (i.e. with presumably normal LA pressure) had more non-cardiovascular (14.0 vs. 6.7 per 100 patient-years, P < 0.001) and cardiovascular non-HF (13.2 vs. 8.0 per 100 patient-years, P = 0.016) hospitalizations in long-term follow-up than patients with restrictive/pseudonormal MIP. CONCLUSIONS: Acute HFpEF diagnosis could be assessed (based on the 2016 ESC criteria) in only a quarter of patients and confirmed in half of these. When assessed, only one in three patients had restrictive/pseudonormal MIP suggestive of elevated LA pressure. Patients with MIP other than restrictive/pseudonormal (suggestive of normal LA pressure) could have been misdiagnosed with acute HFpEF or had echocardiography performed after normalization of LA pressure. They were more often hospitalized for non-HF reasons during follow-up. Symptoms suggestive of acute HFpEF may in some patients represent non-HF comorbidities