Dataset Information

Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Heart failure (HF) is the commonest cause of hospitalization in older adults. Compared to routine hospitalization (RH), hospital at home (HaH)--substitutive hospital-level care in the patient's home--improves outcomes and reduces costs in patients with general medical conditions. The efficacy of HaH in HF is unknown.

Methods and results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, for publications from January 1990 to October 2014. We included prospective studies comparing substitutive models of hospitalization to RH in HF. At least 2 reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed quality. We meta-analyzed results from 3 RCTs (n = 203) and narratively synthesized results from 3 observational studies (n = 329). Study quality was modest. In RCTs, HaH increased time to first readmission (mean difference (MD) 14.13 days [95% CI 10.36 to 17.91]), and improved health-related quality of life (HrQOL) at both, 6 months (standardized MD (SMD) -0.31 [-0.45 to -0.18]) and 12 months (SMD -0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]). In RCTs, HaH demonstrated a trend to decreased readmissions (risk ratio (RR) 0.68 [0.42 to 1.09]), and had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94 [0.67 to 1.32]). HaH decreased costs of index hospitalization in all RCTs. HaH reduced readmissions and emergency department visits per patient in all 3 observational studies.

Conclusions

In the context of a limited number of modest-quality studies, HaH appears to increase time to readmission, reduce index costs, and improve HrQOL among patients requiring hospital-level care for HF. Larger RCTs are necessary to assess the effect of HaH on readmissions, mortality, and long-term costs.

SUBMITTER: Qaddoura A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4460137 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Qaddoura Amro A Yazdan-Ashoori Payam P Kabali Conrad C Thabane Lehana L Haynes R Brian RB Connolly Stuart J SJ Van Spall Harriette Gillian Christine HG

PloS one 20150608 6

<h4>Background</h4>Heart failure (HF) is the commonest cause of hospitalization in older adults. Compared to routine hospitalization (RH), hospital at home (HaH)--substitutive hospital-level care in the patient's home--improves outcomes and reduces costs in patients with general medical conditions. The efficacy of HaH in HF is unknown.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, for publications from January 1990 to October 2014. We included prospective studies c ...[more]

PMID: 26052944

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundControversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).HypothesisLow-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsA total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.ConclusionsCompared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.

Project description:IntroductionAFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN demonstrated lower rates of the combined endpoint recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (CVD) using intravenous (IV) ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and ferric derisomaltose (FDI), respectively in patients with HF and iron deficiency (ID) utilizing prespecified COVID-19 analyses.Material and methodsWe meta-analyzed efficacy, between trial heterogeneity and data robustness for the primary endpoint and CVD in AFFIRM-AHF and IRONMAN. As sensitivity analysis, we analyzed data from all eligible exploratory trials investigating FCM/FDI in HF.ResultsFCM/FDI reduced the primary endpoint (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%), with the number needed to treat (NNT) being 7. Power was 73% and findings were robust with fragility index (FI) of 94 and fragility quotient (FQ) of 0.041. Effects of FCM/FDI were neutral concerning CVD (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.09, p = 0.24, I2 = 0%). Power was 21% while findings were fragile with reverse FI of 14 and reversed FQ of 0.006. The sensitivity analysis from all eligible trials (n = 3258) confirmed positive effects of FCM/FDI on the primary endpoint (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90, p = 0.0008, I2 = 0%), with NNT being 6. Power was 91% while findings were robust (FI of 147 and FQ of 0.045). Effect on CVD was neutral (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.07, p = 0.18, I2 = 0%). Power was 10% while findings were fragile (reverse FI of 7 and reverse FQ of 0.002). Rate of infections (OR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.02, p = 0.09, I2 = 0%), vascular disorder (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.57-1.25, p = 0.34, I2 = 0%) and general or injection-site related disorders (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.88-1.29, p = 0.16, I2 = 30%) were comparable between groups. There was no relevant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) between the trials for any of the analyzed outcomes.ConclusionsUse of FCM/FDI is safe and reduces the composite of recurrent HF hospitalizations and CVD, while effects on CVD alone are based on available level of data indeterminate. Findings concerning composite outcomes exhibit a high level of robustness without heterogeneity between trials with FCM and FDI.

Project description:Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional treatments (CTs) to those that included traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) in patients with combined coronary heart disease and heart failure (CHD-HF). Methods: Eight electronic literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Database) were searched from their inceptions to May 18, 2021, to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes analyzed included the total effectiveness rate and adverse events (ADRs). The secondary outcomes analyzed included the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walk test (6MWT). Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess quality of the analyzed RCTs. Stata and OpenBUGS software were used to prior to the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Results: Sixty-one eligible trials involved 5,567 patients and one of the following 15 TCMIs: Shuxuetong, Shenmai, Shenfu, Shengmai, Danshenduofenyansuan, Danhong, Dazhuhongjingtian, Xinmailong, Dengzhanxixin, Gualoupi, Shuxuening, Xuesaitong, Yiqi Fumai, Shenqi Fuzheng, Huangqi. Network meta-analysis revealed that Shuxuetong injection + CT group was superior to CT only in improving the total effectiveness rate [odds ratio (OR): 7.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-27.41]. Shenmai injection + CT was superior to CT only for LVEF (OR: 8.97, CI: 4.67-13.18), Xinmailong injection + CT was superior to CT only for NT-proBNP (OR: -317.70, CI: -331.10-303.10), Shenqi Fuzheng injection + CT was superior to CT only for BNP (OR: -257.30, CI: -308.40-242.80); and Danhong injection + CT was superior to CT only for 6MWT (OR: 84.40, CI: 62.62-106.20). Different TCMIs had different toxicity spectrums. Conclusion: TCMIs combined with CT are better than CT alone in treating CHD-HF. Different TCMIs improve different outcomes. Additional properly designed RCTs are needed to conduce a more refined comparison of various TCMIs. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], identifier [CRD42021258263].

Dataset Information

Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets