Ahmed Ali
Division of Gerontology/Geriatric Medicine, School of Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and International Health, School of Public Health, Birmingham, Alabama 35294, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Sep;50(9):1590-3. doi: 10.1046/j.1532-5415.2002.50418.x.
To determine whether the management of heart failure by specialized multidisciplinary heart failure disease-management programs was associated with improved outcomes.
The advent of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-blockers, and spironolactone has revolutionized the management of heart failure. Randomized double-blind studies have demonstrated survival benefits of these drugs in heart failure patients. Nevertheless, in spite of these advances, heart failure continues to be a syndrome of poor outcomes.1-4 There is also evidence that a significant portion of heart failure patients does not receive this evidence-based therapy that reduces morbidity and mortality.5-7 Various disease-management programs have been proposed and tested to improve the quality of heart failure care. Most of these programs are specialized multidisciplinary heart failure clinics lead by cardiologists or heart failure specialists and conducted by nurses or nurse practitioners. Similar to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) multidisciplinary geriatric assessment clinics, these clinics also use many other services, including pharmacists, dietitians, physical therapists, and social workers. Some of these programs also have an affiliated home health service. Several observation studies, using mostly pre- and postcomparison designs, have demonstrated the effectiveness of these programs in the process of care, resource use, healthcare costs, and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.8 Risk of hospitalization was reduced by 50% to 85% in six of the studies.8 Subsequently, several randomized trials were conducted to determine the effectiveness of these programs. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of these programs on mortality and hospitalization rates of heart failure patients.
Published articles on human randomized trials involving specialized heart failure disease-management programs in all languages were searched using Medline from 1966 to 1999 and other online databases using the following terms and Medical Subject Headings: case management (exp); comprehensive health care (exp); disease management (exp); health services research (exp); home care services (exp); clinical protocols (exp); patient care planning (exp); quality of health care (exp); nurse led clinics; special clinics; and heart failure, congestive (exp). In addition, a manual search of the bibliographies of searched articles was performed to identify articles otherwise missed in the above search. Personal communications were made with three authors to obtain further data on their studies. Using a data abstraction tool, two of the investigators separately abstracted data from the selected articles. Data from the selected studies were combined using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model and the Mantel-Haenszel-Peto fixed effects model. Meta-Analyst 0.998 software (J. Lau, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA) was used to determine risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of mortality and hospitalization for patients receiving care through these specialized programs compared with those receiving usual care. The Cochran Q test was used to test heterogeneity among the studies, and sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the effect of various covariates, such as duration of intervention, and other characteristics of the disease-management programs.
The original search resulted in 416 published articles, of which 35 met preliminary selection criteria. Of these, 11 were randomized trials and were selected for the meta-analysis. Studies that were not randomized trials, did not involve heart failure patients or disease-management programs, or had missing outcomes were excluded. Of the 11 studies selected, nine involved specialized follow-up using multidisciplinary teams and the remaining two involved follow-up by primary care physicians and telephone. These studies involved 1,937 heart failure patients with a mean age of 74. The follow-up period ranged from no follorom no follow-up (one study) to 1 year (one study). Patients receiving care from specialized heart failure disease-management programs had a 13% lower risk of hospitalization than those receiving usual care (summary RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.79 -0.96), but the Cochran Q test demonstrated significant heterogeneity among the studies (P =.003). Subgroup analysis of the nine studies using specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team showed similar results (summary RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.68-0.86; test of heterogeneity, P>.50). Seven of the nine studies did not show any significant association between intervention and reduced hospitalization, but the two studies that used follow up by primary care physicians and telephone failed to show any significant reduction in hospitalization (summary RR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.75-1.19). In fact, one of the studies demonstrated a higher risk of hospitalization for patients receiving intervention (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.04-1.52). Of the 11 studies, only six reported mortality as an outcome. None of these studies found any association between intervention and mortality (summary RR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.96-1.37; test of heterogeneity, P>.15). Five of the studies used quality of life or functional status as outcomes, and, of them, only one demonstrated significant positive association. The results of the sensitivity analyses were negative for any significant association with duration of intervention or follow-up or year of study. Eight studies performed cost analyses and seven demonstrated cost-effectiveness of the intervention.
The authors concluded that specialized disease-management programs were cost-effective, and heart failure patients cared for by these programs were more likely to undergo fewer hospitalizations, but the study did not provide any conclusive association between these programs and quality of care or mortality. The authors recommend that disease-management programs involve patient education and specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team including home health care.
确定由专业多学科心力衰竭疾病管理项目对心力衰竭进行管理是否与改善预后相关。
血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂、β受体阻滞剂和螺内酯的出现彻底改变了心力衰竭的管理方式。随机双盲研究已证明这些药物对心力衰竭患者有生存益处。然而,尽管有这些进展,心力衰竭仍然是一种预后不良的综合征。1 - 4 也有证据表明,很大一部分心力衰竭患者未接受这种能降低发病率和死亡率的循证治疗。5 - 7 为提高心力衰竭护理质量,已提出并测试了各种疾病管理项目。这些项目大多是由心脏病专家或心力衰竭专科医生牵头、护士或执业护士实施的专业多学科心力衰竭诊所。与退伍军人事务部(VA)的多学科老年评估诊所类似,这些诊所还利用许多其他服务,包括药剂师、营养师、物理治疗师和社会工作者。其中一些项目还设有附属的家庭健康服务。几项观察性研究大多采用前后对照设计,已证明这些项目在心力衰竭患者的护理过程、资源利用、医疗费用和临床结局方面是有效的。8 在六项研究中,住院风险降低了50%至85%。8 随后,进行了几项随机试验以确定这些项目的有效性。本系统评价的目的是确定这些项目对心力衰竭患者死亡率和住院率的有效性。
使用1966年至1999年的Medline以及其他在线数据库,通过以下术语和医学主题词检索了所有语言的、涉及专业心力衰竭疾病管理项目的人类随机试验发表文章:病例管理(扩展);综合医疗保健(扩展);疾病管理(扩展);卫生服务研究(扩展);家庭护理服务(扩展);临床方案(扩展);患者护理计划(扩展);医疗保健质量(扩展);护士主导的诊所;专科诊所;以及心力衰竭,充血性(扩展)。此外,对检索到的文章的参考文献进行了人工检索,以识别上述检索中遗漏的文章。与三位作者进行了个人交流,以获取他们研究的更多数据。使用数据提取工具,两名研究人员分别从选定的文章中提取数据。使用DerSimonian和Laird随机效应模型以及Mantel-Haenszel-Peto固定效应模型对选定研究的数据进行合并。使用Meta-Analyst 0.998软件(J. Lau,新英格兰医疗中心,波士顿,马萨诸塞州)确定接受这些专业项目护理的患者与接受常规护理的患者相比,死亡率和住院率的风险比(RRs)及其95%置信区间(CIs)。使用Cochran Q检验来检验研究之间的异质性,并进行敏感性分析以检查各种协变量的影响,如干预持续时间以及疾病管理项目的其他特征。
最初的检索得到416篇发表文章,其中35篇符合初步筛选标准。其中,11项为随机试验,并被选入荟萃分析。未进行随机试验、未涉及心力衰竭患者或疾病管理项目、或结局缺失的研究被排除。在选定的11项研究中,9项涉及使用多学科团队进行的专业随访,其余2项涉及初级保健医生通过电话进行的随访。这些研究涉及1937名心力衰竭患者,平均年龄为74岁。随访期从无随访(一项研究)到1年(一项研究)不等。接受专业心力衰竭疾病管理项目护理的患者住院风险比接受常规护理的患者低13%(汇总RR = 0.87;95% CI = 0.79 - 0. .96),但Cochran Q检验显示研究之间存在显著异质性(P = .003)。对使用多学科团队进行专业随访的9项研究进行亚组分析显示了类似结果(汇总RR = 0.77,95% CI = 0.68 - 0.86;异质性检验,P > .50)。9项研究中的7项未显示干预与住院减少之间有任何显著关联,但使用初级保健医生通过电话进行随访的2项研究未显示住院有任何显著减少(汇总RR = 0.94,95% CI = 0.75 - 1.19)。事实上,其中一项研究表明接受干预的患者住院风险更高(RR = 1.2 , 95% CI = 1.04 - 1.52)。在11项研究中,只有6项报告了死亡率作为结局。这些研究均未发现干预与死亡率之间有任何关联(汇总RR = 1.15,95% CI = 0.96 - 1.37;异质性检验,P > .15)。5项研究将生活质量或功能状态作为结局,其中只有1项显示出显著的正相关。敏感性分析结果显示,干预持续时间、随访时间或研究年份均无任何显著关联。8项研究进行了成本分析,7项显示干预具有成本效益。
作者得出结论,专业疾病管理项目具有成本效益,接受这些项目护理的心力衰竭患者住院次数更有可能减少,但该研究未提供这些项目与护理质量或死亡率之间的确切关联。作者建议疾病管理项目应包括患者教育以及由包括家庭健康护理在内的多学科团队进行的专业随访。