Diagnosis and management of patients with heart failure in England

Diagnosing heart failure with NT-proBNP point-of-care testing: lower costs and better outcomes. A decision analytic study

Background

Afflicting 1-2% of the adult population, heart failure (HF) is a condition with considerable morbidity and mortality. While echocardiography may be considered the gold standard diagnostic test, GPs have relied on symptoms and clinical findings in diagnosing the condition.

Aim

The aim of this study was to estimate 1-year health outcome and costs of three diagnostic strategies: 1) history and clinical findings ('clinical diagnosis'); 2) clinical diagnosis supplemented with NTproBNP point-of-care test ('POC test') in the GP's surgery; or (3) in hospital laboratory ('hospital test').

Design & setting

A decision tree model was developed to simulate 1-year patient courses with each strategy in Norway.

Method

Sensitivity and specificity of clinical diagnosis (56% and 68%), and of N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide test ([NT-proBNP] 90% and 65%), were based on published literature. The probabilities of referral to hospital were based on a survey of Norwegian GPs (n = 103). The costs were based on various Norwegian fee schedules. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the results.

Results

The 1-year per person societal costs were €543, €505, and €607 for clinical diagnosis, POC test, and hospital test, respectively. Even though POC entails higher laboratory costs, the total primary care costs were lower because of fewer re-visits with the GP and less use of spirometry. While 38% of patients had a delayed diagnosis with clinical diagnosis, the proportions were 22% with both POC test and hospital test. Results were most sensitive to the probability of use of spirometry.

Conclusion

POC testing results in earlier diagnosis and lower costs than the other diagnostic modalities.

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background

Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings.

Objectives

Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community.

Review methods

We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion.

Results

We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed.

Conclusions

In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control.

Limitations

We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers.

Future work

There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The effectiveness of the use of consumer health information technology in patients with heart failure: A meta-analysis and narrative review of randomized controlled trials

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether the use of consumer health information technologies (CHITs) has an impact on outcomes of patients in the self-management of heart failure (HF). Methods A literature search of six electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the analysis. Mortality, hospitalization and length of hospital stay were meta-analyzed and other patient outcomes were synthesized using a narrative approach. Results The literature search identified 50 studies, representing 43 RCTs, comparing the use of CHITs with usual care for HF patients. The meta-analysis showed that the use of CHITs reduced the risk of HF-caused mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.54-0.91), p = 0.007), lowered the risk of HF-caused hospitalization (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.96), p = 0.020), and shortened HF-caused length of hospital stay (mean difference = -0.52, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.27, p < 0.00), but not all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization or all-cause length of hospital stay, compared with usual care. The narrative synthesis indicated that only a small proportion of the trials reported positive effects of CHITs over usual care. Conclusions Evidence from RCTs presents mixed results on the impacts of CHITs for HF management. Further studies are required to assess whether and how CHITs would play a role in enhancing health care and patient outcomes and what specific CHIT features and functions are relevant to different HF treatment goals and self-care objectives.

Overdiagnosis of heart failure in primary care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Access to echocardiography in primary care is limited, but is necessary to accurately diagnose heart failure (HF).

AIM

To determine the proportion of patients with a GP's diagnosis of HF who really have HF.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study of patients in 30 general practices with a GP's diagnosis of heart failure, based on the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) code K77, between June and November 2011.

METHOD

Electronic medical records of the patients' GPs were scrutinised for information on the diagnosis. An expert panel consisting of two cardiologists and an experienced GP used all available diagnostic information, and established the presence or absence of HF according to the criteria of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 683 individuals had a GP's diagnosis of HF. The mean age was 77.9 (SD 11.4) years, and 42.2% were male. Of these 683, 79.6% received cooperative care from a cardiologist. In 73.5% of cases, echocardiography was available for panel re-evaluation. Based on consensus opinion of the panel, 434 patients (63.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 59.9 to 67.1) had definite HF, of which 222 (32.5%, 95% CI = 30.9 to 34.1) had HF with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), 207 (30.3%, 95% CI = 29.0 to 31.6) had HF with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and five (0.7%, 95% CI = 1.2 to 2.6) had isolated right-sided HF. In 17.3% of cases (95% CI = 14.4 to 20.0), the panel considered HF absent, and in 19.2% (95% CI = 16.3 to 22.2) the diagnosis remained uncertain.

CONCLUSION

More than one-third of primary care patients labelled with HF may not have HF, and such overdiagnosis may result in inadequate patient management.

Equity of utilisation of cardiovascular care and mental health services in England: a cohort-based cross-sectional study using small-area estimation

Background

A strong policy emphasis on the need to reduce both health inequalities and unmet need in deprived areas has resulted in the substantial redistribution of English NHS funding towards deprived areas. This raises the question of whether or not socioeconomically disadvantaged people continue to be disadvantaged in their access to and utilisation of health care.

Objectives

To generate estimates of the prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and common mental health disorders (CMHDs) at a variety of scales, and to make these available for public use via Public Health England (PHE). To compare these estimates with utilisation of NHS services in England to establish whether inequalities of use relative to need at various stages on the health-care pathway are associated with particular sociodemographic or other factors.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of practice-, primary care trust- and Clinical Commissioning Group-level variations in diagnosis, prescribing and specialist management of CVD and CMHDs relative to the estimated prevalence of those conditions (calculated using small-area estimation).

Results

The utilisation of CVD care appears more equitable than the utilisation of care for CMHDs. In contrast to the reviewed literature, we found little evidence of underutilisation of services by older populations. Indeed, younger populations appear to be less likely to access care for some CVD conditions. Nor did deprivation emerge as a consistent predictor of lower use relative to need for either CVD or CMHDs. Ethnicity is a consistent predictor of variations in use relative to need. Rates of primary management are lower than expected in areas with higher percentages of black populations for diabetes, stroke and CMHDs. Areas with higher Asian populations have higher-than-expected rates of diabetes presentation and prescribing and lower-than-expected rates of secondary care for diabetes. For both sets of conditions, there are pronounced geographical variations in use relative to need. For instance, the North East has relatively high levels of use of cardiac care services and rural (shire) areas have low levels of use relative to need. For CMHDs, there appears to be a pronounced ‘London effect’, with the number of people registered by general practitioners as having depression, or being prescribed antidepressants, being much lower in London than expected. A total of 24 CVD and 41 CMHD prevalence estimates have been provided to PHE and will be publicly available at a range of scales, from lower- and middle-layer super output areas through to Clinical Commissioning Groups and local authorities.

Conclusions

We found little evidence of socioeconomic inequality in use for CVD and CMHDs relative to underlying need, which suggests that the strong targeting of NHS resources to deprived areas may well have addressed longstanding concerns about unmet need. However, ethnicity has emerged as a significant predictor of inequality, and there are large and unexplained geographical variations in use relative to need for both conditions which undermine the principle of equal access to health care for equal needs. The persistence of ethnic variations and the role of systematic factors (such as rurality) in shaping patterns of utilisation deserve further investigation, as does the fact that the models were far better at explaining variation in use of CVD than mental health services.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Barriers to accurate diagnosis and effective management of heart failure have not changed in the past 10 years: a qualitative study and national survey

OBJECTIVES

To explore changes in healthcare professionals' views about the diagnosis and management of heart failure since a study in 2003.

DESIGN

Focus groups and a national online cross-sectional survey.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Focus groups (n=8 with a total of 56 participants) were conducted in the North East of England using a phenomenological framework and purposive sampling, informing a UK online survey (n=514).

RESULTS

4 categories were identified as contributing to variations in the diagnosis and management of heart failure. Three previously known categories included: uncertainty about clinical practice, the value of clinical guidelines and tensions between individual and organisational practice. A new category concerned uncertainty about end-of-life care. Survey responses found that confidence varied among professional groups in diagnosing left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 95% of cardiologists, 93% of general physicians, 66% of general practitioners (GPs) and 32% of heart failure nurses. For heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), confidence levels were much lower: 58% of cardiologists, 43% of general physicians, 7% of GPs and 6% of heart failure nurses. Only 5-35% of respondents used natriuretic peptides for LVSD or HFpEF. Confidence in interpreting test findings was fundamental to the use of all diagnostic tests. Clinical guidelines were reported to be helpful when diagnosing LVSD by 33% of nurses and 50-56% of other groups, but fell to 5-28% for HFpEF. Some GPs did not routinely initiate diuretics (23%), ACE-inhibitors (22%) or β-blockers (38%) for LVSD for reasons including historical teaching, perceived side effects and burden of monitoring. For end-of-life care, there was no consensus about responsibility for heart failure management.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported differences in the way heart failure is diagnosed and managed have changed little in the past decade. Variable access to diagnostic tests, modes of care delivery and non-uniform management approaches persist. The current National Health Service (NHS) context may not be conducive to addressing these issues.