Dataset Information

The effects and costs of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac rehabilitation improves health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduces hospitalizations in patients with heart failure, but international uptake of cardiac rehabilitation for heart failure remains low.

Design and methods

The aim of this multicentre randomized trial was to compare the REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronicHeart Failure) intervention, a facilitated self-care and home-based cardiac rehabilitation programme to usual care for adults with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The study primary hypothesis was that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention to usual care would improve disease-specific HRQoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire (MLHFQ)) at 12 months compared with usual care alone.

Results

The study recruited 216 participants, predominantly men (78%), with an average age of 70 years and mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 34%. Overall, 185 (86%) participants provided data for the primary outcome. At 12 months, there was a significant and clinically meaningful between-group difference in the MLHFQ score of -5.7 points (95% confidence interval -10.6 to -0.7) in favour of the REACH-HF intervention group ( p = 0.025). With the exception of patient self-care ( p < 0.001) there was no significant difference in other secondary outcomes, including clinical events ( p > 0.05) at follow-up compared with usual care. The mean cost of the REACH-HF intervention was £418 per participant.

Conclusions

The novel REACH-HF home-based facilitated intervention for HFrEF was clinically superior in disease-specific HRQoL at 12 months and offers an affordable alternative to traditional centre-based programmes to address current low cardiac rehabilitation uptake rates for heart failure.

SUBMITTER: Dalal HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6376602 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify and explore change processes explaining the effects of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention taking account of reach, amount of intervention received, delivery fidelity and patient and caregiver perspectives.DesignMixed methods process evaluation parallel to a randomised controlled trial using data from the intervention group (REACH-HF plus usual care).SettingFour centres in the UK (Birmingham, Cornwall, Gwent and York).ParticipantsPeople with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and their caregivers.MethodsThe REACH-HF intervention consisted of a self-help manual for patients with HFrEF and caregivers facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. The process evaluation used multimodal mixed methods analysis. Data consisted of audio recorded intervention sessions; demographic data; intervention fidelity scores for intervention group participants (107 patients and 53 caregivers); qualitative interviews at 4 and 12 months with a sample of 19 patients and 17 caregivers.Outcome measuresQuantitative data: intervention fidelity and number, frequency and duration of intervention sessions received. Qualitative data: experiences and perspectives of intervention participants and caregivers.ResultsIntervention session attendance with facilitators was high. Fidelity scores were indicative of adequate quality of REACH-HF intervention delivery, although indicating scope for improvement in several areas. Intervention effectiveness was contingent on matching the intervention implementation to the concerns, beliefs and goals of participants. Behaviour change was sustained when shared meaning was established. Respondents' comorbidities, socio-economic circumstances and existing networks of support also affected changes in health-related quality of life.ConclusionsBy combining longitudinal mixed methods data, the essential ingredients of complex interventions can be better identified, interrogated and tested. This can maximise the clinical application of research findings and enhance the capacity of multidisciplinary and multisite teams to implement the intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN25032672; Pre-results.

Project description:Background Randomized clinical trials in populations with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may not be reflective of the general population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Our study assessed the representativeness of the GALACTIC-HF (Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac Outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure) patient population in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Methods and Results We identified 9770 patients with a diagnosis of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2014 to 2018 using electronic health records. Four mutually exclusive cohorts were created, including GALACTIC-HF-ineligible cohorts: (1) not taking guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and (2) taking GDMT; and GALACTIC-HF-eligible cohorts with: (3) ejection fraction (EF) ≤28% and (4) EF 29% to 35%. Patients were followed for 30-day and 1-year mortality and 30-day, 180-day, and 1-year hospitalization. Overall, 3626 (37.1%) met GALACTIC-HF inclusion criteria with EF ≤35%, and 2367 (65.3%) of those individuals had EF ≤28%. The risk of 1-year mortality was lower among all cohorts versus the GALACTIC-HF-ineligible cohort not taking GDMT (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.91], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72-0.98], and 0.62 [95% CI, 0.51-0.75] for the GALACTIC-HF-ineligible cohort taking GDMT and GALACTIC-HF-eligible cohorts with EF ≤28% and 29%-35%, respectively). Compared with the GALACTIC-HF-ineligible cohort not taking GDMT, the short-term hospitalization risk at 30 and 180 days were similar for both GALACTIC-HF-eligible cohorts and the hospitalization risk at 1 year was similar for the GALACTIC-HF-eligible cohort with EF ≤28%. Conclusions A large portion of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with low EF met inclusion criteria for the GALACTIC-HF trial and, despite being on GDMT, had hospitalization rates similar to those not taking GDMT, suggesting potential benefits from other innovative treatments.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on top of state-of-the-art pharmacological and device therapy on mortality, hospitalization, exercise capacity and quality-of-life are not well established. DESIGN:The design of this study involved a structured review and meta-analysis. METHODS:Evaluation of randomised controlled trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in HFrEF-patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ?40% of any aetiology with a follow-up of ?6 months published in 1999 or later. RESULTS:Out of 12,229 abstracts, 25 randomised controlled trials including 4481 HFrEF-patients were included in the final evaluation. Heterogeneity in study population, study design and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation-intervention was evident. No significant difference in the effect of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality compared to control-group was found (hazard ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.41, four studies; 12-months follow-up: relative risk 1.29, 95% confidence interval 0.66-2.49, eight studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.26-3.16, seven studies). In addition there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to 'hospitalization-for-any-reason' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.53, four studies), or 'hospitalization-due-to-heart-failure' (12-months follow-up: relative risk 0.59, 95% confidence interval 0.12-2.91, four studies; six-months follow-up: relative risk 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.07-9.71, three studies). All studies show improvement of exercise capacity. Participation in exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation significantly improved quality-of-life as evaluated with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire: (six-months follow-up: mean difference 1.94, 95% confidence interval 0.35-3.56, two studies), but no significant results emerged for quality-of-life measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (nine-months or more follow-up: mean difference -4.19, 95% confidence interval -10.51-2.12, seven studies; six-months follow-up: mean difference -5.97, 95% confidence interval -16.17-4.23, four studies). CONCLUSION:No association between exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation and mortality or hospitalisation could be observed in HFrEF patients but exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is likely to improve exercise capacity and quality of life.