Cargando…

Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline‐recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home‐based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Raat, Willem, Smeets, Miek, Janssens, Stefan, Vaes, Bert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33405392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13152
_version_ 1783672354254094336
author Raat, Willem
Smeets, Miek
Janssens, Stefan
Vaes, Bert
author_facet Raat, Willem
Smeets, Miek
Janssens, Stefan
Vaes, Bert
author_sort Raat, Willem
collection PubMed
description Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline‐recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home‐based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta‐analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all‐cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all‐cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home‐based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8006678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80066782021-04-01 Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis Raat, Willem Smeets, Miek Janssens, Stefan Vaes, Bert ESC Heart Fail Review Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline‐recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home‐based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta‐analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all‐cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all‐cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta‐regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home‐based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8006678/ /pubmed/33405392 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13152 Text en © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Review
Raat, Willem
Smeets, Miek
Janssens, Stefan
Vaes, Bert
Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8006678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33405392
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13152
work_keys_str_mv AT raatwillem impactofprimarycareinvolvementandsettingonmultidisciplinaryheartfailuremanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT smeetsmiek impactofprimarycareinvolvementandsettingonmultidisciplinaryheartfailuremanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT janssensstefan impactofprimarycareinvolvementandsettingonmultidisciplinaryheartfailuremanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT vaesbert impactofprimarycareinvolvementandsettingonmultidisciplinaryheartfailuremanagementasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis