National survey of the prevalence, incidence, primary care burden, and treatment of heart failure in Scotland

Objective: To examine the epidemiology, primary care burden, and treatment of heart failure in Scotland, UK. Design: Cross sectional data from primary care practices participating in the Scottish continuous morbidity recording scheme between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. Setting: 53 primary care practices ( 307 741 patients). Subjects: 2186 adult patients with heart failure. Results: The prevalence of heart failure in Scotland was 7.1 in 1000, increasing with age to 90.1 in 1000 among patients greater than or equal to 85 years. The incidence of heart failure was 2.0 in 1000, increasing with age to 22.4 in 1000 among patients greater than or equal to 85 years. For older patients, consultation rates for heart failure equalled or exceeded those for angina and hypertension. Respiratory tract infection was the most common comorbidity leading to consultation. Among men, 23% were prescribed a beta blocker, 11% spironolactone, and 46% an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. The corresponding figures for women were 20% (p = 0.29 versus men), 7% (p = 0.02), and 34% (p < 0.001). Among patients, 75 years 26% were prescribed a β blocker, 11% spironolactone, and 50% an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. The corresponding figures for patients &GE; 75 years were 19% (p = 0.04 versus patients < 75), 7% (p = 0.04), and 33% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Heart failure is a common condition, especially with advancing age. In the elderly, the community burden of heart failure is at least as great as that of angina or hypertension. The high rate of concomitant respiratory tract infection emphasises the need for strategies to immunise patients with heart failure against influenza and pneumococcal infection. Drugs proven to improve survival in heart failure are used less frequently for elderly patients and women.

Influence of socioeconomic deprivation on the primary care burden and treatment of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure in general practice in Scotland: population based study

Objectives To examine whether there are socioeconomic gradients in die incidence, prevalence, treatment, and follow up of patients with heart failure in primary care. Design Population based study. Setting 53 general practices (307741 patients) participating in the Scottish continuous morbidity recording project between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. Participants 2186 adults with heart failure. Main outcome measures Comorbid diagnoses, frequency of visits to general practitioner, and prescribed drugs. Results 2186 patients with heart failure were seen (prevalence 7.1 per 1000 population, incidence 2.0 per 1000 population). The age and sex standardised incidence of heart failure increased with greater socioeconomic deprivation, from 1.8 per 1000 population in the most affluent stratum to 2.6 per 1000 population in the most deprived stratum (odds ratio 1.44, P=0.0003). On average, patients were seen 2.4 times yearly, but follow up rates were less frequent with increasing socioeconomic deprivation (from 2.6 yearly in the most affluent subgroup to 2.0 yearly in the most deprived subgroup, P=0.00009). Overall, 812 (80.6%) patients were prescribed diuretics, 396 (39.3%) angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, 216 (21.4%) beta blockers, 208 (20.7%) digoxin, and 86 (8.5%) spironolactone. The wide discrepancies in prescribing between different general practices disappeared after adjustment for patient age and sex. Prescribing patterns did not vary by deprivation categories on univariate or multivariate analyses. Conclusions Compared with affluent patients, socioeconomically deprived patients were 44% more likely to develop heart failure but 23% less likely to see their general practitioner on an ongoing basis. Prescribed treatment did not differ across socioeconomic gradients.

Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission - A systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether multidisciplinary strategies improve outcomes for heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND Because the prognosis of HF remains poor despite pharmacotherapy, there is increasing interest in alternative models of care delivery for these patients. METHODS Randomized trials of multidisciplinary management programs in HF were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies and via contact with experts. RESULTS Twenty-nine trials (5,039 patients) were identified but were not pooled, because of considerable heterogeneity. A priori, we divided the interventions into homogeneous groups that were suitable for pooling. Strategies that incorporated follow-up by a specialized multidisciplinary team (either in a clinic or a non-clinic setting) reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.96), HF hospitalizations (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92). Programs that focused on enhancing patient self-care activities reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93) but had no effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.94). Strategies that employed telephone contact and advised patients to attend their primary care physician in the event of deterioration reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) but not mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29) or all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20). In 15 of 18 trials that evaluated cost, multidisciplinary strategies were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of patients with HF reduce HF hospitalizations. Those programs that involve specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team also reduce mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Fundamental considerations of beta-adrenoceptor subtypes in human heart failure

beta-Adrenoceptor antagonists have revolutionized the management of heart failure in humans. However, fundamental questions remain concerning their use. Currently, there is considerable debate about the role of beta(2)-adrenoceptors in heart failure and whether incremental clinical benefit can be obtained by blockade of beta(2)-adrenoceptors in addition to beta(1)-adrenoceptors. Polymorphic forms of beta(1)- and beta(2)-adrenoceptors exist, which might contribute to the variable clinical outcomes that are observed with P-adrenoceptor antagonists. There is evidence for a low-affinity state of beta(1)-adrenoceptors and ventricular beta(3)-adrenoceptors, and these are discussed in the context of heart failure. Finally, there is seemingly paradoxical evidence that restoration and normalization of the beta-adrenoceptor system is beneficial in animal models of heart failure. We reconcile this view with the current clinical use and proven benefit of beta-adrenoceptor antagonists.

CHARMed - the effects of candesartan in heart failure

The Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and mortality (CHARM) programme has already shown that candesartan is an effective alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (CHARM-Alternative), that additional benefits can be achieved by adding candesartan to ACE inhibitors (CHARM-Added), and that in patients with a preserved cardiac output there are reduced hospital admissions (CHARM-Preserved). Further recent analysis of the CHARM programme has shown that of the cardiovascular deaths, the benefit of candesartan was due to a reduction in sudden death and progressive heart failure, and that these reductions were observed in the -Alternative and -Added but not -Preserved components. Combination of the CHAR M-Alternative and -Added trials confirmed this reduction of cardiovascular deaths, and also demonstrated that candesartan reduced hospital admissions. There were also improvements in the New York Heart Association functional class of heart failure in the -Alternative and -Added, but not -Preserved, components of CHARM. The benefits of candesartan in heart failure are maintained in the presence of an ACE inhibitor and P-blocker. So far, all of the findings with candesartan in the CHARM programme have been favourable/CHARMed, although the beneficial effects in patients with a preserved cardiac output are limited.

Effects of aldosterone on forearm vasculature in treated chronic heart failure

The nongenomic effects of aldosterone in disease states associated with endothelial dysfunction may differ from those in healthy subjects. The effects of locally infused aldosterone on the forearm blood flow and volume were studied in optimally treated patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). At baseline and after incremental intrabrachial aldosterone, forearm blood flow was assessed using conventional strain gouge plethysmography, and forearm venous volume was assessed by radionuclide plethysmography. Constriction of the resistance vasculature of the forearm without significant effect on forearm venous capacitance was demonstrated in response to aldosterone in patients treated for CHF. (C) 2005 by Excerpta Medica Inc.

Effects of a nurse-led, clinic and home-based intervention on recurrent hospital use in chronic heart failure

Background: Few studies have examined the potential benefits of specialist nurse-led programs of care involving home and clinic-based follow-up to optimise the post-discharge management of chronic heart failure (CHF). Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a hybrid program of clinic plus home-based intervention (C+HBI) in reducing recurrent hospitalisation in CHF patients. Methods: CHF patients with evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction admitted to two hospitals in Northern England were assigned to a C+HBI lasting 6 months post-discharge (n=58) or to usual, post-discharge care (UC: n=48) via a cluster randomization protocol. The co-primary endpoints were death or unplanned readmission (event-free survival) and rate of recurrent, all-cause readmission within 6 months of hospital discharge. Results: During study follow-up, more UC patients had an unplanned readmission for any cause (44% vs. 22%: P=0.0191 OR 1.95 95% CI 1.10-3.48) whilst 7 (15%) versus 5 (9%) UC and C+HBI patients, respectively, died (P=NS). Overall, 15 (26%) C+HBI versus 21 (44%) UC patients experienced a primary endpoint. C+HBI was associated with a non-significant, 45% reduction in the risk of death or readmission when adjusting for potential confounders (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28-1.08: P=0.08). Overall, C+HBI patients accumulated significantly fewer unplanned readmissions (15 vs. 45: P

Financial aspects of heart failure programs of care

As suggested by studies that have examined the economic burden imposed by heart failure and, more specifically where the greatest expenditure occurs, the key to cost-effectively minimising the impact of a sustained heart failure epidemic is to minimise recurrent hospital use-even at the expense of increasing levels of community-based care and prescribed pharmacotherapy [Mark DB. Economics of treating heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1997;80:33H-38H; Weintraub WS, Cole J, Tooley JF. Cost and cost-effectiveness studies in heart failure research. Am Heart J 2002;143:565-76]. This paper examines the potential cost-benefits of applying specialist heart failure programs of care and the range of financial issues that need to be considered when establishing a formal heart failure service. (C) 2005 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Carvedilol reduces the costs of medical care in severe heart failure: An economic analysis of the COPERNICUS study applied to the United Kingdom

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of carvedilol on the costs related to the treatment of severe chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods: Costs for the treatment for heart failure within the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) were applied to resource utilisation data prospectively collected in all patients randomized into the Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study. Unit-specific, per them (hospital bed day) costs were used to calculate expenditures due to hospitalizations. We also included costs of carvedilol treatment, general practitioner surgery/office visits, hospital out-patient clinic visits and nursing home care based on estimates derived from validated patterns of clinical practice in the UK. Results: The estimated cost of carvedilol therapy and related ambulatory care for the 1156 patients assigned to active treatment was 530,771 pound (44.89 pound per patient/month of follow-up). However, patients assigned to carvedilol were hospitalised less often and accumulated fewer and less expensive days of admission. Consequently, the total estimated cost of hospital care was 3.49 pound million in the carvedilol group compared with 4.24 pound million for the 1133 patients in the placebo arm. The cost of post-discharge care was also less in the carvedilol than in the placebo group (479,200 pound vs. 548,300) pound. Overall, the cost per patient treated in the carvedilol group was 3948 pound compared to 4279 pound in the placebo group. This equated to a cost of 385.98 pound vs. 434.18 pound, respectively, per patient/month of follow-up: an 11.1% reduction in health care costs in favour of carvedilol. Conclusions: These findings suggest that not only can carvedilol treatment increase survival and reduce hospital admissions in patients with severe CHF but that it can also cut costs in the process.