Effectiveness of Heart Failure Checklist Management in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: An Open-Label, Single-Center Controlled Study During 18 Months of Follow-Up.
{"title":"Effectiveness of Heart Failure Checklist Management in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: An Open-Label, Single-Center Controlled Study During 18 Months of Follow-Up.","authors":"Xiaorong Xu, Jing Cheng, Yeping Zhang, Xin Wang, Mulei Chen, Lin Xu, Wenshu Zhao","doi":"10.2147/TCRM.S417426","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The efficacy of chronic heart failure (CHF) checklist management in reducing adverse outcomes of heart failure patients is still uncertain. This study explores whether CHF checklist management is more useful than usual care in reducing adverse health outcomes in the medium- and long-term among CHF patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In our prospective study, 132 patients with CHF were randomly assigned to CHF management group and usual care group by random number method. Patients in CHF management group were conducted through CHF checklist by cardiologists and general practitioner. Patients assigned to usual care were treated by non-stationary medical group without checklist. All groups were followed up for 18 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in overall mortality rate between management group and control group during 18 months (12.3% [8/65] vs. 11.7% [7/60], P = 0. 912]). The re-hospitalization rate of heart failure in management group (18.5% [12/65]) was significantly lower than that in usual care group (38.3% [23/60]) after 18 months of follow-up (P = 0.013). Median NT-proBNP level (632.3 ng/l vs. 1678 ng/l, p = 0.004) was lower in management group than that in usual care group. Cardiac ultrasonography was performed at 18 months between the management and usual care group. LVEDD (55.88±7.11 mm vs. 60.92±8.06 mm) and LVESD (43.25±8.42mm vs. 48.41± 9.02mm) were decreased (P<0.01). LVEF was increased (45.36±10.64% vs. 39.96 ±10.15%, P<0.01). The utilization rate of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, β-blocker were high in management group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CHF checklist management by cardiologists and general practitioners can significantly reduce the re-hospitalization and improve cardiac function. CHF management through heart failure checklist may improve prognosis in patients with CHF in the medium- and long-term.</p>","PeriodicalId":22977,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S417426","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The efficacy of chronic heart failure (CHF) checklist management in reducing adverse outcomes of heart failure patients is still uncertain. This study explores whether CHF checklist management is more useful than usual care in reducing adverse health outcomes in the medium- and long-term among CHF patients.
Methods: In our prospective study, 132 patients with CHF were randomly assigned to CHF management group and usual care group by random number method. Patients in CHF management group were conducted through CHF checklist by cardiologists and general practitioner. Patients assigned to usual care were treated by non-stationary medical group without checklist. All groups were followed up for 18 months.
Results: There was no significant difference in overall mortality rate between management group and control group during 18 months (12.3% [8/65] vs. 11.7% [7/60], P = 0. 912]). The re-hospitalization rate of heart failure in management group (18.5% [12/65]) was significantly lower than that in usual care group (38.3% [23/60]) after 18 months of follow-up (P = 0.013). Median NT-proBNP level (632.3 ng/l vs. 1678 ng/l, p = 0.004) was lower in management group than that in usual care group. Cardiac ultrasonography was performed at 18 months between the management and usual care group. LVEDD (55.88±7.11 mm vs. 60.92±8.06 mm) and LVESD (43.25±8.42mm vs. 48.41± 9.02mm) were decreased (P<0.01). LVEF was increased (45.36±10.64% vs. 39.96 ±10.15%, P<0.01). The utilization rate of ACEI/ARB/ARNI, β-blocker were high in management group.
Conclusion: CHF checklist management by cardiologists and general practitioners can significantly reduce the re-hospitalization and improve cardiac function. CHF management through heart failure checklist may improve prognosis in patients with CHF in the medium- and long-term.
背景:慢性心力衰竭(CHF)检查表管理在减少心力衰竭患者不良结局方面的效果尚不确定。本研究探讨CHF检查表管理在减少CHF患者中长期不良健康结局方面是否比常规护理更有用。方法:采用前瞻性研究方法,采用随机数字法将132例CHF患者随机分为CHF管理组和常规护理组。CHF管理组患者由心内科医生和全科医生通过CHF检查表进行检查。常规护理组采用不设检查表的非固定治疗组。各组随访18个月。结果:治疗组与对照组18个月总死亡率比较,差异无统计学意义(12.3% [8/65]vs. 11.7% [7/60], P = 0。912])。随访18个月后,管理组心衰再住院率(18.5%[12/65])显著低于常规护理组(38.3%[23/60]),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.013)。治疗组NT-proBNP水平中位数(632.3 ng/l vs 1678 ng/l, p = 0.004)低于常规护理组。治疗组和常规护理组在18个月时进行心脏超声检查。LVEDD(55.88±7.11 mm vs. 60.92±8.06 mm)和LVESD(43.25±8.42mm vs. 48.41±9.02mm)降低(p结论:心内科医生和全科医生对CHF检查表进行管理可显著减少再次住院,改善心功能。通过心力衰竭检查表进行CHF管理可以改善CHF患者的中长期预后。
期刊介绍:
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management is an international, peer-reviewed journal of clinical therapeutics and risk management, focusing on concise rapid reporting of clinical studies in all therapeutic areas, outcomes, safety, and programs for the effective, safe, and sustained use of medicines, therapeutic and surgical interventions in all clinical areas.
The journal welcomes submissions covering original research, clinical and epidemiological studies, reviews, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary. The journal will consider case reports but only if they make a valuable and original contribution to the literature.
As of 18th March 2019, Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management will no longer consider meta-analyses for publication.
The journal does not accept study protocols, animal-based or cell line-based studies.