Dataset Information

Effect of Patient-Centered Transitional Care Services on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The PACT-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Health care services that support the hospital-to-home transition can improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF).

Objective

To test the effectiveness of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in HF transitional care model in patients hospitalized for HF.

Design, setting, and participants

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of 2494 adults hospitalized for HF across 10 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, from February 2015 to March 2016, with follow-up until November 2016.

Interventions

Hospitals were randomized to receive the intervention (n = 1104 patients), in which nurse-led self-care education, a structured hospital discharge summary, a family physician follow-up appointment less than 1 week after discharge, and, for high-risk patients, structured nurse homevisits and heart function clinic care were provided to patients, or usual care (n = 1390 patients), in which transitional care was left to the discretion of clinicians.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcomes were hierarchically ordered as composite all-cause readmission, emergency department (ED) visit, or death at 3 months; and composite all-cause readmission or ED visit at 30 days. Secondary outcomes were B-PREPARED score for discharge preparedness (range: 0 [most prepared] to 22 [least prepared]); the 3-Item Care Transitions Measure (CTM-3) for quality of transition (range: 0 [worst transition] to 100 [best transition]); the 5-level EQ-5D version (EQ-5D-5L) for quality of life (range: 0 [dead] to 1 [full health]); and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY; range: 0 [dead] to 0.5 [full health at 6 months]).

Results

Among eligible patients, all 2494 (mean age, 77.7 years; 1258 [50.4%] women) completed the trial. There was no significant difference between the intervention and usual care groups in the first primary composite outcome (545 [49.4%] vs 698 [50.2%] events, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.83-1.19]) or in the second primary composite outcome (304 [27.5%] vs 408 [29.3%] events, respectively; HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.73-1.18]). There were significant differences between the intervention and usual care groups in the secondary outcomes of mean B-PREPARED score at 6 weeks (16.6 vs 13.9; difference, 2.65 [95% CI, 1.37-3.92]; P < .001); mean CTM-3 score at 6 weeks (76.5 vs 70.3; difference, 6.16 [95% CI, 0.90-11.43]; P = .02); and mean EQ-5D-5L score at 6 weeks (0.7 vs 0.7; difference, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.11]; P = .02) and 6 months (0.7 vs 0.6; difference, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.01-0.12]; P = .02). There was no significant difference in mean QALY between groups at 6 months (0.3 vs 0.3; difference, 0.00 [95% CI, -0.02 to 0.02]; P = .98).

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with HF in Ontario, Canada, implementation of a patient-centered transitional care model compared with usual care did not improve a composite of clinical outcomes. Whether this type of intervention could be effective in other health care systems or locations would require further research.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02112227.

SUBMITTER: Van Spall HGC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6439867 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIt remains unclear whether telemonitoring approaches provide benefits for patients with heart failure (HF) after hospitalization.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a care transition intervention using remote patient monitoring in reducing 180-day all-cause readmissions among a broad population of older adults hospitalized with HF.Design, setting, and participantsWe randomized 1437 patients hospitalized for HF between October 12, 2011, and September 30, 2013, to the intervention arm (715 patients) or to the usual care arm (722 patients) of the Better Effectiveness After Transition-Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) study and observed them for 180 days. The dates of our study analysis were March 30, 2014, to October 1, 2015. The setting was 6 academic medical centers in California. Participants were hospitalized individuals 50 years or older who received active treatment for decompensated HF.InterventionsThe intervention combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring. Telemonitoring used electronic equipment that collected daily information about blood pressure, heart rate, symptoms, and weight. Centralized registered nurses conducted telemonitoring reviews, protocolized actions, and telephone calls.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was readmission for any cause within 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes were all-cause readmission within 30 days, all-cause mortality at 30 and 180 days, and quality of life at 30 and 180 days.ResultsAmong 1437 participants, the median age was 73 years. Overall, 46.2% (664 of 1437) were female, and 22.0% (316 of 1437) were African American. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ significantly in readmissions for any cause 180 days after discharge, which occurred in 50.8% (363 of 715) and 49.2% (355 of 722) of patients, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = .74). In secondary analyses, there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission or 180-day mortality, but there was a significant difference in 180-day quality of life between the intervention and usual care groups. No adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized for HF, combined health coaching telephone calls and telemonitoring did not reduce 180-day readmissions.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01360203.

Project description:BackgroundAdvanced heart failure (HF) is characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Conventional therapy may not sufficiently reduce patient suffering and maximize quality of life.ObjectivesThe authors investigated whether an interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in addition to evidence-based HF care improves certain outcomes.MethodsThe authors randomized 150 patients with advanced HF between August 15, 2012, and June 25, 2015, to usual care (UC) (n = 75) or UC plus a palliative care intervention (UC + PAL) (n = 75) at a single center. Primary endpoints were 2 quality-of-life measurements, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (FACIT-Pal), assessed at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included assessments of depression and anxiety (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), spiritual well-being (measured via the FACIT-Spiritual Well-Being scale [FACIT-Sp]), hospitalizations, and mortality.ResultsPatients randomized to UC + PAL versus UC alone had clinically significant incremental improvement in KCCQ and FACIT-Pal scores from randomization to 6 months (KCCQ difference = 9.49 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94 to 18.05, p = 0.030; FACIT-Pal difference = 11.77 points, 95% CI: 0.84 to 22.71, p = 0.035). Depression improved in UC + PAL patients (HADS-depression difference = -1.94 points; p = 0.020) versus UC-alone patients, with similar findings for anxiety (HADS-anxiety difference = -1.83 points; p = 0.048). Spiritual well-being was improved in UC + PAL versus UC-alone patients (FACIT-Sp difference = 3.98 points; p = 0.027). Randomization to UC + PAL did not affect rehospitalization or mortality.ConclusionsAn interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in advanced HF patients showed consistently greater benefits in quality of life, anxiety, depression, and spiritual well-being compared with UC alone. (Palliative Care in Heart Failure [PAL-HF]; NCT01589601).

Project description:BackgroundLoop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF.MethodsTRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months.ResultsBaseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization.ConclusionsAmong patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough furosemide is the most commonly used loop diuretic in patients with heart failure, some studies suggest a potential benefit for torsemide.ObjectiveTo determine whether torsemide results in decreased mortality compared with furosemide among patients hospitalized for heart failure.Design, setting, and participantsTRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic randomized trial that recruited 2859 participants hospitalized with heart failure (regardless of ejection fraction) at 60 hospitals in the United States. Recruitment occurred from June 2018 through March 2022, with follow-up through 30 months for death and 12 months for hospitalizations. The final date for follow-up data collection was July 2022.InterventionsLoop diuretic strategy of torsemide (n = 1431) or furosemide (n = 1428) with investigator-selected dosage.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality in a time-to-event analysis. There were 5 secondary outcomes with all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization and total hospitalizations assessed over 12 months being highest in the hierarchy. The prespecified primary hypothesis was that torsemide would reduce all-cause mortality by 20% compared with furosemide.ResultsTRANSFORM-HF randomized 2859 participants with a median age of 65 years (IQR, 56-75), 36.9% were women, and 33.9% were Black. Over a median follow-up of 17.4 months, a total of 113 patients (53 [3.7%] in the torsemide group and 60 [4.2%] in the furosemide group) withdrew consent from the trial prior to completion. Death occurred in 373 of 1431 patients (26.1%) in the torsemide group and 374 of 1428 patients (26.2%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.89-1.18]). Over 12 months following randomization, all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization occurred in 677 patients (47.3%) in the torsemide group and 704 patients (49.3%) in the furosemide group (hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-1.02]). There were 940 total hospitalizations among 536 participants in the torsemide group and 987 total hospitalizations among 577 participants in the furosemide group (rate ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07]). Results were similar across prespecified subgroups, including among patients with reduced, mildly reduced, or preserved ejection fraction.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients discharged after hospitalization for heart failure, torsemide compared with furosemide did not result in a significant difference in all-cause mortality over 12 months. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by loss to follow-up and participant crossover and nonadherence.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03296813.