Rationale and study design of a patient-centered intervention to improve health status in chronic heart failure: The Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) randomized trial

Palliative Care in Heart Failure: An Integrative Review of Nurse Practice

Introduction: Because it is a chronic disease of progressive evolution, heart failure requires nursing attitudes and practices that are articulated with palliative care, implemented in an interdisciplinary team along with patients and their families. Objective: Identifying nurses' attitudes and practices in palliative care in cardiology. Method: Integrative literature review. The searches were carried out in the following bases: Google Scholar, Virtual Health Library, LILACS, SciELO, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus; through the terms Palliative Care AND Cardiology AND Nursing. Results: We identified 1298 studies published in the last five years, 14 of which have been selected for the scope of this review. Nurse attitudes and practices were characterized as: approach to symptom control; promotion of comfort and well-being; integrality of care and family orientation; effective communication among patients, family members and nursing team; timely evaluation for palliative care. Most of the studies included in this review have evidence level 2C (n = 7) and 2B (n = 4). Therefore, the results can be interpreted as reliable. Conclusions: This study makes important contributions to the practice of nurses in palliative care for heart failure. Based on the evidence collected, nurses can develop actions with the nursing team and with the interdisciplinary team related to direct patient and family care, as well as professional training. However, the field lacks studies showing the practices and actions implemented by the nursing team.

How Does Spiritual Well-Being Change Over Time Among US Patients with Heart Failure and What Predicts Change?

Few studies have examined how spiritual well-being changes over time in patients with heart failure. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) trial (N = 314). Spiritual well-being was measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Of the 165 patients with spiritual well-being data at follow-up, 65 (39%) experienced probable clinically meaningful changes (> 0.5 SD) in spiritual well-being (35 improved, 30 declined). Increased pain (p = 0.04), decreased dyspnea (p < 0.01), and increased life completion (p = 0.02) were associated with improvement in overall spiritual well-being. Exploratory analyses found different predictors for FACIT-Sp subscales.

Preferred Role in Health Care Decision Making Over Time in Patients With Heart Failure: My Decision or My Doctor's Decision?

BACKGROUND

Understanding patients' preferred role in decision making can improve patient-centered care. This study aimed to determine change and the predictors of change in preferred decision-making roles over time in patients with heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

During the CASA (Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness) trial, patients' preferred roles in decision making were measured using the Control Preferences Scale (range 1-5; higher = less active; n = 312) at 4 timepoints over 1 year. The effect of the CASA intervention on preferred decision-making roles was tested using generalized linear mixed models. Whether preferences changed over time in the whole population was determined using linear regression. Demographic and health-related factors were examined as predictors of change using multiple linear regression. At baseline, most participants preferred active (score 1-2, 37.2%) or collaborative (score 3, 44.9%) roles. The CASA intervention did not influence preferred decision-making roles (P > 0.1). Preferences significantly changed over 1 year (P < 0.01), becoming more active (82.1%, 84.2%, 89.0%, 90.1% active/collaborative at each timepoint). Among all models and covariates, there were no significant predictors of change (P > 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' preferred roles in decision making change over time, but changes are not well predicted. Clinicians should frequently and directly communicate with patients about their preferred decision-making roles.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of the DEG, a Three-Item Dyspnea Measure

BACKGROUND

Dyspnea is a common and debilitating symptom that affects many different patient populations. Dyspnea measures should assess multiple domains.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of an ultra-brief, multi-dimensional dyspnea measure.

DESIGN

We adapted the DEG from the PEG, a valid 3-item pain measure, to assess average dyspnea intensity (D), interference with enjoyment of life (E), and dyspnea burden with general activity (G).

PARTICIPANTS

We used data from a multi-site randomized clinical trial among outpatients with heart failure.

MAIN MEASURES

We evaluated reliability (Cronbach's alpha), concurrent validity with the Memorial-Symptom-Assessment-Scale (MSAS) shortness-of-breath distress-orbothersome item and 7-item Generalized-Anxiety-Disorder (GAD-7) scale, knowngroups validity with New-York-Heart-Association-Functional-Classification (NYHA) 1-2 or 3-4 and presence or absence of comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), responsiveness with the MSAS item as an anchor, and calculated a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) using distribution methods.

KEY RESULTS

Among 312 participants, the DEG was reliable (Cronbach's alpha 0.92). The mean (standard deviation) DEG score was 5.26 (2.36) (range 0-10) points. DEG scores correlated strongly with the MSAS shortness of breath distress-or-bothersome item (r=0.66) and moderately with GAD-7 categories (ρ=0.36). DEG scores were statistically significantly lower among patients with NYHA 1-2 compared to 3-4 [mean difference (standard error): 1.22 (0.27) points, p<0.01], and those without compared to with comorbid COPD [0.87 (0.27) points, p<0.01]. The DEG was highly sensitive to change, with MCID of 0.59-1.34 points, or 11-25% change.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel, ultra-brief DEG measure is reliable, valid, and highly responsive. Future studies should evaluate the DEG's sensitivity to interventions, use anchor-based methods to triangulate MCID estimates, and determine its prognostic usefulness among patients with chronic cardiopulmonary and other diseases.

"Made Me Realize That Life Is Worth Living": A Qualitative Study of Patient Perceptions of a Primary Palliative Care Intervention

Background: Primary palliative care is needed to meet the complex needs of patients with serious illness and their families. However, patient perceptions of primary palliative care are not well understood and can inform subsequent primary palliative care interventions and implementation. Objective: Elicit the patient perspective on a primary palliative care intervention, Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA), from patient perspectives. Design: Qualitative study using patient interviews and two methods of triangulation. Setting/Subjects: Between July 2014 and September 2015, we interviewed 45 patients who participated in the intervention in a Veterans Affairs (VA) (primary site), academic, and urban safety-net health system in the United States. Main Measures: Participants were asked about what was most and least helpful, how the intervention affected participants' lives, and what should be changed about the intervention. Data were analyzed using a general inductive approach. To enhance validity of the results, we triangulated the findings from patient interviews, reviews of care coordinator documentation, and interprofessional palliative care providers. Results: The six themes identified that primary care intervention: (1) Cared for My Psychosocial Needs, (2) Encouraged Self-Management, (3) Medication Recommendations Worked, (4) Facilitated Goal Attainment, (5) Team was Beneficial, and (6) Good Visit Timing. Conclusions: Participants experienced benefits from the primary palliative care intervention and attributed these benefits to individualized assessment and support, facilitation of skill building and self-management, and oversight from an interprofessional care team. Future primary palliative care interventions may benefit from targeting these specific patient-valued processes.

A longitudinal analysis of the relationships between depression, fatigue, and pain in patients with heart failure

OBJECTIVES

Depression, pain, and fatigue are common and bothersome symptoms in heart failure, a serious illness in older adults. Understanding longitudinal pathways among depression, pain, and fatigue in heart failure could inform treatment and improve quality of life.

METHODS

We completed secondary, longitudinal data analyses of a sample of older adults with heart failure (baseline N = 317). Bootstrapped mediation was used to examine two longitudinal models of pain and depression, with fatigue at 6-months as the mediator. The outcome variables were 12-month pain and depression.

RESULTS

Depressive symptoms were associated with new onset of pain symptoms; however, this association was mediated by fatigue. Pain was not associated with new depression or fatigue symptoms in this sample.

DISCUSSION

In patients with heart-failure, worsening pain symptoms appear to be directly related to levels of depression and fatigue. These findings demonstrate that depression and fatigue may be key to reducing pain symptoms in this population.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Does heart failure-specific health status identify patients with bothersome symptoms, depression, anxiety, and/or poorer spiritual well-being?

AIMS

Patients with heart failure often have under-recognized symptoms, depression, anxiety, and poorer spiritual well-being ('QoL domains'). Ideally all patients should have heart failure-specific health status and quality of life (QoL) domains routinely evaluated; however, lack of time and resources are limiting in most clinical settings. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate whether heart failure-specific health status was associated with QoL domains and to identify a score warranting further evaluation of QoL domain deficits.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Participants (N = 314) enrolled in the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness trial completed measures of heart failure-specific health status [Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, KCCQ (score 0-100, 0 = worst health status)], additional symptoms (Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and spiritual well-being (Facit-Sp) at baseline. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) KCCQ score was 46.9 ± 19.3, mean age was 65.5 ± 11.4, and 79% were male. Prevalence of QoL domain deficits ranged from 11% (nausea) to 47% (depression). Sensitivity/specificity of KCCQ for each QoL domain ranged from 20-40%/80-96% for KCCQ ≤ 25, 61-84%/48-62% for KCCQ ≤ 50, 84-97%/26-40% for KCCQ ≤ 60, and 96-100%/8-13% for KCCQ ≤ 75. Patients with KCCQ ≤ 60 had mean ± SD 4.5 ± 2.5 QoL domain deficits (maximum 12), vs. 1.6 ± 1.6 for KCCQ > 60 (P < 0.001). Similar results were seen for KCCQ ≤25 (6.6 ± 2.4 vs. 3.3 ± 2.4), KCCQ ≤ 50 (4.8 ± 2.6 vs. 2.5 ± 2) and KCCQ ≤ 75 (4.0 ± 2.6 vs. 1.0 ± 1.2) (all P < 00001).

CONCLUSION

KCCQ ≤ 60 had good sensitivity for each QoL domain deficit and for patients with at least one QoL domain deficit. Screening for QoL domain deficits should target patients with lower KCCQ scores based on a clinic's KCCQ score distribution and clinical resources for addressing QoL domain deficits.

Identifying critical psychotherapy targets in serious cardiac conditions: The importance of addressing coping with symptoms, healthcare navigation, and social support

OBJECTIVE

In seriously ill cardiac patients, several psychotherapy efficacy studies demonstrate little to no reduction in depression or improvement in quality of life, and little is known about how to improve psychotherapies to best address the range of patient needs. An interpersonal and behavioral activation psychotherapy was a key component of the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) multisite randomized clinical trial. Although depressive symptoms did improve in the CASA trial, questions remain about how best to tailor psychotherapies to the needs of seriously ill patient populations. The study objective was to describe psychosocial needs emerging during a clinical trial of a palliative care and interpersonal and behavioral activation psychotherapy intervention that were not specifically addressed by the psychotherapy.

METHOD

During the CASA trial, patient needs were prospectively tracked by the psychotherapist in each visit note using an a priori code list. Preplanned analysis of study data using directed content analysis was conducted analyzing the a priori code list, which were collapsed by team consensus into larger themes. The frequency of each code and theme were calculated into a percentage of visits.

RESULT

A total of 150 patients received one or more visits from the therapist and were included in the analysis. Participants screened positive for depressive disorder (47%), had poor heart failure-specific health status (mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score = 48.6; SD = 17.4), and multiple comorbidities (median 4.3). Common needs that emerged during the therapy included difficulty coping with fatigue (48%), pain (28%), and satisfaction issues with medical care (43%). The following broader themes emerged: social support (77% of sessions), unmet symptom needs (67%), healthcare navigation (48%), housing, legal, safety, and transportation (32%), and end of life (12%).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Coping with chronic symptoms and case management needs commonly emerged during psychotherapy visits. Future psychotherapy interventions in seriously ill populations should consider the importance of coping with chronic symptoms and case management.

mHealth education interventions in heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic disease with significant impact on quality of life and presents many challenges to those diagnosed with the condition, due to a seemingly complex daily regimen of self-care which includes medications, monitoring of weight and symptoms, identification of signs of deterioration and follow-up and interaction with multiple healthcare services. Education is vital for understanding the importance of this regimen, and adhering to it. Traditionally, education has been provided to people with heart failure in a face-to-face manner, either in a community or a hospital setting, using paper-based materials or video/DVD presentations. In an age of rapidly-evolving technology and uptake of smartphones and tablet devices, mHealth-based technology (defined by the World Health Organization as mobile and wireless technologies to achieve health objectives) is an innovative way to provide health education which has the benefit of being able to reach people who are unable or unwilling to access traditional heart failure education programmes and services.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and quantify the potential benefits and harms of mHealth-delivered education for people with heart failure.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed an extensive search of bibliographic databases and registries (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal), using terms to identify HF, education and mHealth. We searched all databases from their inception to October 2019 and imposed no restriction on language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were conducted as a randomised controlled trial (RCT), involving adults (≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of HF. We included trials comparing mHealth-delivered education such as internet and web-based education programmes for use on smartphones and tablets (including apps) and other mobile devices, SMS messages and social media-delivered education programmes, versus usual HF care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data from all included studies. We calculated the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data and the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We include five RCTs (971 participants) of mHealth-delivered education interventions for people with HF in this review. The number of trial participants ranged from 28 to 512 participants. Mean age of participants ranged from 60 years to 75 years, and 63% of participants across the studies were men. Studies originated from Australia, China, Iran, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Most studies included participants with symptomatic HF, NYHA Class II - III. Three studies addressed HF knowledge, revealing that the use of mHealth-delivered education programmes showed no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge compared to usual care (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.40, P = 0.51, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 411 participants; low-quality evidence). One study assessing self-efficacy reported that both study groups had high levels of self-efficacy at baseline and uncertainty in the evidence for the intervention (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.57 to 1.77; P = 0.31; 1 study, 29 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three studies evaluated HF self-care using different scales. We did not pool the studies due to the heterogenous nature of the outcome measures, and the evidence is uncertain. None of the studies reported adverse events. Four studies examined health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There was uncertainty in the evidence for the use of mHealth-delivered education on HRQoL (MD -0.10, 95% CI -2.35 to 2.15; P = 0.93, I² = 61%; 4 studies, 942 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies reported on HF-related hospitalisation. The use of mHealth-delivered education may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisation (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.06; P = 0.10, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 894 participants; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the quality of the studies due to limitations in study design and execution, heterogeneity, wide confidence intervals and fewer than 500 participants in the analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that the use of mHealth-delivered educational interventions for people with HF shows no evidence of a difference in HF knowledge; uncertainty in the evidence for self-efficacy, self-care and health-related quality of life; and may result in little to no difference in HF-related hospitalisations. The identification of studies currently underway and those awaiting classification indicate that this is an area of research from which further evidence will emerge in the short and longer term.

Disease management interventions for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

Palliative medicine for patients with advanced heart failure: New evidence

Although heart failure is one of the most common clinical syndromes in medicine and has a high mortality rate, few patients have access to adequate palliative care for their clinical situation. Several trials have recently been published on the usefulness of starting palliative treatment along with cardiac treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. In this review, we analyse the aspects of diagnosing and controlling the symptoms of patients with advanced heart failure and provide a collection of clinical trials that have analysed the efficacy of a palliative intervention in this patient group. Physicians need to be equipped with strategies for recognizing the need for this type of intervention without it resulting in neglecting the active treatment of the patient's heart failure.

The THRIVE model: A framework and review of internal and external predictors of coping with chronic illness

This article explores the ways in which people cope with social and clinical dimensions of their chronic conditions. Existing literature was reviewed to categorize factors identified as being key. They were sorted into six groupings which are reflected by the acronym THRIVE: therapeutic interventions, habit and routine, relational-social, individual differences, values and beliefs, and emotional factors. We found little evidence to suggest different conditions prompt unique coping responses; rather, a range of common factors were observed across diverse conditions. The THRIVE framework not only summarizes current literature but provides a starting point for further research and development of future interventions.

Spiritual distress and spiritual care in advanced heart failure

As patients face serious and chronic illness, they are confronted with the realities of dying. Spiritual and existential issues are particularly prominent near the end of life and can result in significant distress. It is critical that healthcare professionals know how to address patients' and families' spiritual concerns, diagnose spiritual distress and attend to the deep suffering of patients in a way that can result in a better quality of life for patients and families. Tools such as the FICA spiritual history tool help clinicians invite patients and families to share their spiritual or existential concerns as well as sources of hope and meaning which can help them cope better with their illness. This article presents ways to help clinicians listen to the whole story of the patient and support patients in their care.

Effect of a Collaborative Care Intervention vs Usual Care on Health Status of Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: The CASA Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Many patients with chronic heart failure experience reduced health status despite receiving conventional therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a symptom and psychosocial collaborative care intervention improves heart failure-specific health status, depression, and symptom burden in patients with heart failure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-blind, 2-arm, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted at Veterans Affairs, academic, and safety-net health systems in Colorado among outpatients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced health status recruited between August 2012 and April 2015. Data from all participants were included regardless of level of participation, using an intent-to-treat approach.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) intervention or usual care. The CASA intervention included collaborative symptom care provided by a nurse and psychosocial care provided by a social worker, both of whom worked with the patients' primary care clinicians and were supervised by a study primary care clinician, cardiologist, and palliative care physician.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was patient-reported heart failure-specific health status, measured by difference in change scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression (measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire), overall symptom distress (measured by the General Symptom Distress Scale), specific symptoms (pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath), number of hospitalizations, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 314 patients randomized (157 to intervention arm and 157 to control arm), there were 67 women and 247 men, mean (SD) age was 65.5 (11.4) years, and 178 (56.7%) had reduced ejection fraction. At 6 months, the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved 5.5 points in the intervention arm and 2.9 points in the control arm (difference, 2.6; 95% CI, -1.3 to 6.6; P = .19). Among secondary outcomes, depressive symptoms and fatigue improved at 6 months with CASA (effect size of -0.29 [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.04] for depressive symptoms and -0.30 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.06] for fatigue; P = .02 for both). There were no significant changes in overall symptom distress, pain, shortness of breath, or number of hospitalizations. Mortality at 12 months was similar in both arms (10 patients died receiving CASA, and 13 patients died receiving usual care; P = .52).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This multisite randomized clinical trial of the CASA intervention did not demonstrate improved heart failure-specific health status. Secondary outcomes of depression and fatigue, both difficult symptoms to treat in heart failure, improved.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739686.

Improving Early Palliative Care with a Scalable, Stepped Peer Navigator and Social Work Intervention: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer could benefit from early primary (i.e., basic) palliative care. Scalable models of care delivery are needed.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the feasibility of a stepped peer navigator and social work intervention developed to improve palliative care outcomes.

DESIGN

Single-arm prospective clinical trial. The peer navigator educated patients to advocate for pain and symptom management with their healthcare providers, motivated patients to pursue advance care planning, and discussed the role of hospice. The social worker saw patients with persistent psychosocial distress.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Patients with advanced cancer at a VA Medical Center not currently in palliative care or hospice whose oncologist would not be surprised if the patient died in the subsequent year.

MEASUREMENTS

Participation and retention rates, patient-reported symptoms and quality of life, advance directive documentation, patient satisfaction survey, and semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 38% (17/45), and 35% (7/17) completed final survey measures. Patients had stage IV (81%) and primarily genitourinary (47%) and lung (24%) malignancies. Median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0. Patient-reported surveys indicated low distress (mean scores: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, 75.3 [standard deviation {SD} 17.6]; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale symptom scores ranged from 1.6 to 3.8; Patient Health Questionnaire-9, 5.7 [SD 5.2]; and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, 2.8 [SD 4.1]). Of those who had not completed advance directives at baseline (n = 11, 65%), five completed them by the end of study (5/11, 45%). Patients who completed satisfaction surveys (n = 7) and interviews (n = 4) provided mixed reviews of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

At a single site, a stepped peer navigator and social work palliative care study had several challenges to feasibility, including low patient-reported distress and loss to follow-up.

Palliative and end of life care in solid organ transplantation

Palliative care is an interprofessional approach that focuses on quality of life of patients who are facing life-threatening illness. Palliative care is consistently associated with improvements in advance care planning, patient and caregiver satisfaction, quality of life, symptom burden, and lower healthcare utilization. Most transplant patients have advanced chronic disease, significant symptom burden, and mortality awaiting transplant. Transplantation introduces new risks including perioperative death, organ rejection, infection, renal insufficiency, and malignancy. Numerous publications over the last decade identify that palliative care is well-suited to support these patients and their caregivers, yet access to palliative care and research within this population are lacking. This review describes palliative care and summarizes existing research supporting palliative intervention in advanced organ failure and transplant populations. A proposed model to provide palliative care in parallel with disease-directed therapy in a transplant program has the potential to improve symptom burden, quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Further studies are needed to elucidate specific benefits of palliative care for this population. In addition, there is a tremendous need for education, specifically for clinicians, patients, and families, to improve understanding of palliative care and its benefits for patients with advanced disease.

Mutuality and heart failure self-care in patients and their informal caregivers

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a progressive condition characterized by frequent hospitalizations for exacerbated symptoms. Informal family caregivers may help patients improve self-care, which may in turn reduce hospitalizations. However, little is known about how mutuality, defined as the quality of the patient-caregiver relationship, and caregiver burden affect self-care.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the associations among mutuality, patient self-care confidence (beliefs in abilities to engage in self-care behaviors) and maintenance (behaviors such as medication adherence, activity, and low salt intake), caregiver confidence in and maintenance of patient care, and caregiver perceived burden.

METHODS

This study used cross-sectional baseline data from a multi-site randomized clinical trial of a symptom and psychosocial care intervention. Patient-caregiver dyads ( N=99) completed self-report surveys of mutuality and self-care confidence and maintenance, and caregivers completed a measure of caregiver burden. Path analysis, with actor (effects within a person) partner (effects across the dyad) interdependence model paths and regression models were used to examine the associations among mutuality, caregiver burden, and self-care.

RESULTS

The majority of patients ( M age=66, 21% female) and caregivers ( M age=57, 81% female) were spouses (60%). The path model demonstrated significant actor effects; patients and caregivers with better mutuality were more confident in patient self-care ( p<.05). Partner effects were not significant. Regression models indicated that caregivers with greater mutuality reported less perceived burden ( p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mutuality in patient-caregiver dyads is associated with patient self-care and caregiver burden and may be an important intervention target to improve self-care and reduce hospitalizations.

Research Priorities in Subspecialty Palliative Care: Policy Initiatives

Palliative care demonstrably improves quality of life for the seriously ill in a manner that averts preventable health crises and their associated costs. Because of these outcomes, palliative care is now broadening its reach beyond hospitals, and hospice care for those near death, to patients and their families living in the community with chronic multimorbidities that have uncertain or long expected survival. In this article, we address research needed to enable policies supportive of palliative care access and quality, including changes in regulatory, accreditation, financing, and training approaches in the purview of policy makers. Mr. K. is an 86-year-old male with multimorbidities, including severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, and atrial fibrillation requiring anticoagulation therapy. He fell in his mobile home and was unable to reach the telephone to call for help. Six hours later, his neighbor found him lying on the bedroom floor in pain and confused, and called 911. On examination, he was found to have a cold blue foot complicated by a large hematoma. The vascular surgery service was consulted to evaluate Mr. K. for revascularization or amputation. Although Mr. K. had several risk factors complicating his candidacy for general anesthesia, the team thought the benefits of surgery would outweigh the risks. Mr. K's daughter agreed to surgery telling her father "the doctors know best." Mr. K. replied "I just want to be out of pain." Six months later, Mr. K. remains in a skilled nursing facility due to post-op complications, including pneumonia, worsened confusion, and the inability to recover to enough function to live safely at home. He now suffers from depression, cognitive deficits, and social isolation. His daughter has had to take on a second job because she is struggling to pay for his continued long-term care, which costs $6000 per month. Money she had saved for her own retirement and her daughter's college tuition is already gone. In retrospect, she realizes the surgical team did not discuss the possibility of his survival with chronic debility and long-term functional dependency, nor the fact that Medicare would not pay for the care he now requires.