Dataset Information

Standard vs. intensified management of heart failure to reduce healthcare costs: results of a multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To determine if an intensified form of heart failure management programme (INT-HF-MP) based on individual profiling is superior to standard management (SM) in reducing health care costs during 12-month follow-up (primary endpoint).

Methods and results

A multicentre randomized trial involving 787 patients (full analysis set) discharged from four tertiary hospitals with chronic HF who were randomized to SM (n = 391) or INT-HF-MP (n = 396). Mean age was 74 ± 12 years, 65% had HF with a reduced ejection fraction (31.4 ± 8.9%) and 14% were remote-dwelling. Study groups were well matched. According to Green, Amber, Red Delineation of rIsk And Need in HF (GARDIAN-HF) profiling, regardless of location, patients in the INT-HF-MP received a combination of face-to-face (home visits) and structured telephone support (STS); only 9% (`low risk') were designated to receive the same level of management as the SM group. The median cost in 2017 Australian dollars (A$1 equivalent to ∼EUR €0.7) of applying INT-HF-MP was significantly greater than SM ($152 vs. $121 per patient per month; P < 0.001), However, at 12 months, there was no difference in total health care costs for the INT-HF-MP vs. SM group (median $1579, IQR $644 to $3717 vs. $1450, IQR $564 to $3615 per patient per month, respectively). This reflected minimal differences in all-cause mortality (17.7% vs. 18.4%; P = 0.848) and recurrent hospital stay (18.6 ± 26.5 vs. 16.6 ± 24.8 days; P = 0.199) between the INT-HF-MP and SM groups, respectively.

Conclusion

During 12-months follow-up, an INT-HF-MP did not reduce healthcare costs or improve health outcomes relative to SM.

SUBMITTER: Scuffham PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5843128 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsMultidisciplinary team (MDT) management in heart failure (HF) is recommended to reduce mortality and HF hospitalization. We investigated whether an MDT in a community-based HF unit (HFU) impacted patients' healthcare utilization (HCU) and costs.Methods and resultsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among HF patients who visited at least once in a regional community-based HFU, established for ambulatory specialist care for New York Heart Association Functional Classes III and IV, between January 2012 and August 2019. HCU data were obtained from the health maintenance organization's claims data for 12 months before and after first HFU visit. Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were specified for the annual average change in total healthcare utilization and hospitalization costs. Our cohort consisted of 962 patients, of whom 843 (87.6%) completed at least 12 months of follow-up (Group A) and 119 (12.4%) died within 12 months following their first visit (Group B). Both groups were comparable regarding sex, socio-economic status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, ischaemic heart disease, and/or carotid artery disease. Those who died within 12 months were older and had more hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal disease, and malignancy. There was a significant reduction in the total average annual HCU costs of the entire study population 12 months after the first HFU visit [$12 675 (±17 210) after vs. $13 188 (±15 011) before, P = 0.014]. This was driven by a reduction in costs among patients who completed 12 months of follow-up [$11 955 (±17 352) after vs. $13 112 (±15 268) before, P < 0.001], whereas an increase in these costs was observed among patients who died during follow-up [$17 774 (±15 292) after vs. $13 728 (±13 093) before, P = 0.015]. These opposite trends stem mainly from a decrease [$3540 (±8991) after vs. $4941 (±6806) before, P < 0.001] vs. increase [$10 932 (±11 660) after vs. $6733 (±7215) before, P = 0.002] in hospitalization costs of these groups, respectively. The multivariable models revealed that patients who died within 12 months following the first visit to the HFU demonstrated a significant increase of 57% in hospitalization costs following their first visit [relative risk (RR) = 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-2.05, P = 0.001], whereas there was a decrease of 34% in the hospitalization costs of patients who completed 12 months of follow-up after their first visit (RR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.54-0.81, P < 0.001). The entire cohort demonstrated 27% decrease in hospitalization costs following their first HFU visit (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsIntensification of therapy by a dedicated MDT significantly reduced healthcare utilization and costs, predominantly due to a decrease in hospitalizations.

Project description:BackgroundRemote patient management (RPM) in heart failure (HF) patients has been investigated in several prospective randomized trials. The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2)-trial showed reduced all-cause mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients using remote patient management (RPM) vs. usual care (UC). We report the trial's results for prespecified eGFR-subgroups.MethodsTIM-HF2 was a prospective, randomized, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked (with randomization concealment), multicenter trial. A total of 1,538 patients with stable HF were enrolled in Germany from 2013 to 2017 and randomized to RPM (+UC) or UC. Using CKD-EPI-formula at baseline, prespecified subgroups were defined. In RPM, patients transmitted their vital parameters daily. The telemedical center reviewed and co-operated with the patient's General Practitioner (GP) and cardiologist. In UC, patients were treated by their GPs or cardiologist applying the current guidelines for HF management and treatment. The primary endpoint was the percentage of days lost due to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalizations or death, secondary outcomes included hospitalizations, all-cause, and cardiovascular mortality.ResultsOur sub analysis showed no difference between RPM and UC in both eGFR-subgroups for the primary endpoint (<60 ml/min/1.73 m2: 40.9% vs. 43.6%, p = 0.1, ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 26.5 vs. 29.3%, p = 0.36). In patients with eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, 1-year-survival was higher in RPM than UC (89.4 vs. 84.6%, p = 0.02) with an incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.67 (p = 0.03). In the recurrent event analysis, HF hospitalizations and all-cause death were lower in RPM than UC in both eGFR-subgroups (<60 ml/min/1.73 m2: IRR 0.70, p = 0.02; ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2: IRR 0.64, p = 0.04). In a cox regression analysis, age, NT-pro BNP, eGFR, and BMI were associated with all-cause mortality.ConclusionRPM may reduce all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations in patients with HF and eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2. HF hospitalizations and all-cause death were lower in RPM in both eGFR-subgroups in the recurrent event analysis. Further studies are needed to investigate and confirm this finding.