Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, and ankle swelling are common in general practice but deciding which patients are likely to have heart failure is challenging. AIM: To evaluate the performance of a clinical decision rule (CDR), with or without N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay, for identifying heart failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, observational, diagnostic validation study of patients aged >55 years, presenting with shortness of breath, lethargy, or ankle oedema, from 28 general practices in England. METHOD: The outcome was test performance of the CDR and natriuretic peptide test in determining a diagnosis of heart failure. The reference standard was an expert consensus panel of three cardiologists. RESULTS: Three hundred and four participants were recruited, with 104 (34.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.9 to 39.8) having a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure. The CDR+NT-proBNP had a sensitivity of 90.4% (95% CI = 83.0 to 95.3) and specificity 45.5% (95% CI = 38.5 to 52.7). NT-proBNP level alone with a cut-off <400 pg/ml had sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI = 67.6 to 84.6) and specificity 91.5% (95% CI = 86.7 to 95.0). At the lower cut-off of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI = 87.9 to 97.9) and specificity 49.0% (95% CI = 41.9 to 56.1). CONCLUSION: At the low threshold of NT-proBNP <125 pg/ml, natriuretic peptide testing alone was better than a validated CDR+NT-proBNP in determining which patients presenting with symptoms went on to have a diagnosis of heart failure. The higher NT-proBNP threshold of 400 pg/ml may mean more than one in five patients with heart failure are not appropriately referred. Guideline natriuretic peptide thresholds may need to be revised

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital. DESIGN: A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care. METHODS: Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4400 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained compared to a "do nothing" strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care

Background Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital. Design A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care. Methods Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Results The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4,400 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained compared to a “do nothing” strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥ 400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection

Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, and ankle swelling are common in general practice but deciding which patients are likely to have heart failure is challenging. AIM: To evaluate the performance of a clinical decision rule (CDR), with or without N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay, for identifying heart failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, observational, diagnostic validation study of patients aged &gt;55 years, presenting with shortness of breath, lethargy, or ankle oedema, from 28 general practices in England. METHOD: The outcome was test performance of the CDR and natriuretic peptide test in determining a diagnosis of heart failure. The reference standard was an expert consensus panel of three cardiologists. RESULTS: Three hundred and four participants were recruited, with 104 (34.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.9 to 39.8) having a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure. The CDR+NT-proBNP had a sensitivity of 90.4% (95% CI = 83.0 to 95.3) and specificity 45.5% (95% CI = 38.5 to 52.7). NT-proBNP level alone with a cut-off &lt;400 pg/ml had sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI = 67.6 to 84.6) and specificity 91.5% (95% CI = 86.7 to 95.0). At the lower cut-off of NT-proBNP &lt;125 pg/ml, sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI = 87.9 to 97.9) and specificity 49.0% (95% CI = 41.9 to 56.1). CONCLUSION: At the low threshold of NT-proBNP &lt;125 pg/ml, natriuretic peptide testing alone was better than a validated CDR+NT-proBNP in determining which patients presenting with symptoms went on to have a diagnosis of heart failure. The higher NT-proBNP threshold of 400 pg/ml may mean more than one in five patients with heart failure are not appropriately referred. Guideline natriuretic peptide thresholds may need to be revised

Primary care REFerral for EchocaRdiogram (REFER) in heart failure: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms of breathlessness, fatigue, and ankle swelling are common in general practice but deciding which patients are likely to have heart failure is challenging. AIM: To evaluate the performance of a clinical decision rule (CDR), with or without N-Terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) assay, for identifying heart failure. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, observational, diagnostic validation study of patients aged andgt;55 years, presenting with shortness of breath, lethargy, or ankle oedema, from 28 general practices in England. METHOD: The outcome was test performance of the CDR and natriuretic peptide test in determining a diagnosis of heart failure. The reference standard was an expert consensus panel of three cardiologists. RESULTS: Three hundred and four participants were recruited, with 104 (34.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 28.9 to 39.8) having a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure. The CDR+NT-proBNP had a sensitivity of 90.4% (95% CI = 83.0 to 95.3) and specificity 45.5% (95% CI = 38.5 to 52.7). NT-proBNP level alone with a cut-off andlt;400 pg/ml had sensitivity 76.9% (95% CI = 67.6 to 84.6) and specificity 91.5% (95% CI = 86.7 to 95.0). At the lower cut-off of NT-proBNP andlt;125 pg/ml, sensitivity was 94.2% (95% CI = 87.9 to 97.9) and specificity 49.0% (95% CI = 41.9 to 56.1). CONCLUSION: At the low threshold of NT-proBNP andlt;125 pg/ml, natriuretic peptide testing alone was better than a validated CDR+NT-proBNP in determining which patients presenting with symptoms went on to have a diagnosis of heart failure. The higher NT-proBNP threshold of 400 pg/ml may mean more than one in five patients with heart failure are not appropriately referred. Guideline natriuretic peptide thresholds may need to be revised

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care

Background Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital. Design A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care. Methods Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Results The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4,400 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained compared to a “do nothing” strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥ 400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection

MICE or NICE? An economic evaluation of clinical decision rules in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care

Background Detection and treatment of heart failure (HF) can improve quality of life and reduce premature mortality. However, symptoms such as breathlessness are common in primary care, have a variety of causes and not all patients require cardiac imaging. In systems where healthcare resources are limited, ensuring those patients who are likely to have HF undergo appropriate and timely investigation is vital. Design A decision tree was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the MICE (Male, Infarction, Crepitations, Edema) decision rule compared to other diagnostic strategies to identify HF patients presenting to primary care. Methods Data from REFER (REFer for EchocaRdiogram), a HF diagnostic accuracy study, was used to determine which patients received the correct diagnosis decision. The model adopted a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Results The current recommended National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for identifying patients with HF was the most cost-effective option with a cost of £4,400 per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained compared to a “do nothing” strategy. That is, patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of HF should be referred straight for echocardiography if they had a history of myocardial infarction or if their NT-proBNP level was ≥ 400pg/ml. The MICE rule was more expensive and less effective than the other comparators. Base-case results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusions This represents the first cost-utility analysis comparing HF diagnostic strategies for symptomatic patients. Current guidelines in England were the most cost-effective option for identifying patients for confirmatory HF diagnosis. The low number of HF with Reduced Ejection Fraction patients (12%) in the REFER patient population limited the benefits of early detection