指南-转诊标准和转诊到专门心力衰竭诊所的门诊患者的风险概况

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS CJC Open Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1016/j.cjco.2024.11.006
Isabelle J. Tan HBSc , Batol Barodi MGA , Tayler A. Buchan PhD(c) , Lakshmi Kugathasan PhD , Michael McDonald MD , Heather Ross MD, MHSc , Ana C. Alba MD, PhD
{"title":"指南-转诊标准和转诊到专门心力衰竭诊所的门诊患者的风险概况","authors":"Isabelle J. Tan HBSc ,&nbsp;Batol Barodi MGA ,&nbsp;Tayler A. Buchan PhD(c) ,&nbsp;Lakshmi Kugathasan PhD ,&nbsp;Michael McDonald MD ,&nbsp;Heather Ross MD, MHSc ,&nbsp;Ana C. Alba MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Specialised heart failure (HF) care improves outcomes for patients with HF. To understand the risk profiles of HF outpatients referred to a specialised clinic, we evaluated referral reasons, predicted risk, and the presence of guideline-recommended referral criteria at a large specialised HF clinic.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional study including outpatients with HF (≥ 18 years old) referred from November 2021 to November 2022. We calculated 1-year predicted mortality with the use of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the I-NEED-HELP referral criteria. We compared median SHFM-predicted mortality with referral reasons and the I-NEED-HELP criteria by means of Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 245 consecutive HF outpatients included, median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality was 4% (interquartile range [IQR] 2%-8%). Reasons for referral included evaluation for advanced therapies (29%), medication optimisation (23%), diagnostic evaluation (19%), post-hospitalisation/emergency department visit (14%), ongoing HF management (12%), patient request (2%), and transition to adult care (1%). The median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality did not differ significantly by referral reason (<em>P</em> = 0.11) but differed significantly among patients meeting any (5%, IQR 3%-9%) vs no (3%, IQR 2%-5%) I-NEED-HELP criteria (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Across referral reasons, the presence of any I-NEED-HELP criteria differed significantly (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001); most patients referred for advanced therapies evaluation (96%) and diagnostic evaluation (94%) met at least 1 criterion.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Patients referred to a specialised HF clinic have a wide risk range. The difference in predicted mortality among patients meeting any vs no I-NEED-HELP criteria appears clinically insignificant. Incorporating model-predicted risk at the time of referral can guide triage and patient prioritisation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36924,"journal":{"name":"CJC Open","volume":"7 2","pages":"Pages 127-136"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guideline-Referral Criteria and Risk Profiles of Outpatients Referred to a Specialised Heart Failure Clinic\",\"authors\":\"Isabelle J. Tan HBSc ,&nbsp;Batol Barodi MGA ,&nbsp;Tayler A. Buchan PhD(c) ,&nbsp;Lakshmi Kugathasan PhD ,&nbsp;Michael McDonald MD ,&nbsp;Heather Ross MD, MHSc ,&nbsp;Ana C. Alba MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cjco.2024.11.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Specialised heart failure (HF) care improves outcomes for patients with HF. To understand the risk profiles of HF outpatients referred to a specialised clinic, we evaluated referral reasons, predicted risk, and the presence of guideline-recommended referral criteria at a large specialised HF clinic.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional study including outpatients with HF (≥ 18 years old) referred from November 2021 to November 2022. We calculated 1-year predicted mortality with the use of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the I-NEED-HELP referral criteria. We compared median SHFM-predicted mortality with referral reasons and the I-NEED-HELP criteria by means of Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 245 consecutive HF outpatients included, median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality was 4% (interquartile range [IQR] 2%-8%). Reasons for referral included evaluation for advanced therapies (29%), medication optimisation (23%), diagnostic evaluation (19%), post-hospitalisation/emergency department visit (14%), ongoing HF management (12%), patient request (2%), and transition to adult care (1%). The median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality did not differ significantly by referral reason (<em>P</em> = 0.11) but differed significantly among patients meeting any (5%, IQR 3%-9%) vs no (3%, IQR 2%-5%) I-NEED-HELP criteria (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Across referral reasons, the presence of any I-NEED-HELP criteria differed significantly (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001); most patients referred for advanced therapies evaluation (96%) and diagnostic evaluation (94%) met at least 1 criterion.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Patients referred to a specialised HF clinic have a wide risk range. The difference in predicted mortality among patients meeting any vs no I-NEED-HELP criteria appears clinically insignificant. Incorporating model-predicted risk at the time of referral can guide triage and patient prioritisation.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CJC Open\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 127-136\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CJC Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24005249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJC Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589790X24005249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:专门的心力衰竭(HF)护理可改善心力衰竭患者的预后。为了了解转诊到专科诊所的心衰门诊患者的风险概况,我们评估了转诊原因,预测了风险,并在一家大型心衰专科诊所评估了指南推荐的转诊标准。方法:我们进行了一项横断面研究,纳入了2021年11月至2022年11月转诊的HF(≥18岁)门诊患者。我们使用西雅图心力衰竭模型(SHFM)和I-NEED-HELP转诊标准计算1年预测死亡率。我们通过Kruskal-Wallis、Wilcoxon秩和、卡方和Fisher精确检验比较shfm预测的中位死亡率与转诊原因和I-NEED-HELP标准。结果纳入的245例连续HF门诊患者中,shfm预测的1年死亡率中位数为4%(四分位数间距[IQR] 2%-8%)。转诊原因包括先进治疗评估(29%)、药物优化(23%)、诊断评估(19%)、住院后/急诊科就诊(14%)、持续的心衰管理(12%)、患者要求(2%)和转至成人护理(1%)。shfm预测的1年死亡率中位数因转诊原因而无显著差异(P = 0.11),但在满足任何(5%,IQR 3%-9%)与不满足(3%,IQR 2%-5%) I-NEED-HELP标准的患者中差异显著(P <;0.001)。在转诊原因中,任何I-NEED-HELP标准的存在差异显著(P <;0.001);大多数接受高级治疗评估(96%)和诊断评估(94%)的患者至少满足1项标准。结论到专门的心衰门诊就诊的患者风险范围较大。满足任何I-NEED-HELP标准与不满足I-NEED-HELP标准的患者预测死亡率的差异在临床上似乎不显著。在转诊时结合模型预测的风险可以指导分诊和患者优先排序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Guideline-Referral Criteria and Risk Profiles of Outpatients Referred to a Specialised Heart Failure Clinic

Background

Specialised heart failure (HF) care improves outcomes for patients with HF. To understand the risk profiles of HF outpatients referred to a specialised clinic, we evaluated referral reasons, predicted risk, and the presence of guideline-recommended referral criteria at a large specialised HF clinic.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study including outpatients with HF (≥ 18 years old) referred from November 2021 to November 2022. We calculated 1-year predicted mortality with the use of the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the I-NEED-HELP referral criteria. We compared median SHFM-predicted mortality with referral reasons and the I-NEED-HELP criteria by means of Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon rank-sum, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests.

Results

Among 245 consecutive HF outpatients included, median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality was 4% (interquartile range [IQR] 2%-8%). Reasons for referral included evaluation for advanced therapies (29%), medication optimisation (23%), diagnostic evaluation (19%), post-hospitalisation/emergency department visit (14%), ongoing HF management (12%), patient request (2%), and transition to adult care (1%). The median SHFM-predicted 1-year mortality did not differ significantly by referral reason (P = 0.11) but differed significantly among patients meeting any (5%, IQR 3%-9%) vs no (3%, IQR 2%-5%) I-NEED-HELP criteria (P < 0.001). Across referral reasons, the presence of any I-NEED-HELP criteria differed significantly (P < 0.001); most patients referred for advanced therapies evaluation (96%) and diagnostic evaluation (94%) met at least 1 criterion.

Conclusions

Patients referred to a specialised HF clinic have a wide risk range. The difference in predicted mortality among patients meeting any vs no I-NEED-HELP criteria appears clinically insignificant. Incorporating model-predicted risk at the time of referral can guide triage and patient prioritisation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CJC Open
CJC Open Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
143
审稿时长
60 days
期刊最新文献
Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for Primary Prevention of Stroke Distal Vessel Diameter and Antegrade Crossing Success in Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion in a Patient with Situs Inversus: Challenges and Technical Considerations Imaging-Guided Plaque Modification Enables Dual-Branch Revascularization in Unprotected Aorto-Ostial Left Main Chronic Total Occlusion Evaluation of a Community-based Quality Improvement Smoking Cessation Program Using the Ottawa Model During COVID-19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1