Get With the Guidelines in ED Patients With Heart Failure
- Conditions
- Heart Failure
- Interventions
- Behavioral: Standard of CareBehavioral: GUIDED-HF
- Registration Number
- NCT02519283
- Lead Sponsor
- Vanderbilt University
- Brief Summary
Approximately 20-30% of patients presenting with acute heart failure are discharged from the ED. Compared to patients discharged from the hospital, they more frequently return to the ED and hospital for further management. While inpatient discharges are often enrolled in transitions programs and have their care tailored to evidence-based recommendations, ED discharges do not. The investigators propose to evaluate current standard ED discharge to an ED-based intervention which will transition patients to outpatient follow-up on guideline-recommended therapy.
- Detailed Description
Heart failure (HF) is common and growing healthcare concern. Heart failure affects nearly 6 million Americans. It results in over one million annual hospital discharges as the primary discharge diagnosis and an additional two million hospitalizations where HF contributes to the discharge diagnosis. Despite a relative reduction in the hospitalization rate of HF, the actual number of HF hospitalizations remains over one million annually. This figure is expected to significantly worsen with the aging United States population and the growing HF prevalence. Over 80% of patients who are hospitalized are initially seen in the emergency department (ED). However, not all those seen in the ED for HF are admitted; a sizeable proportion are discharged home without hospitalization. As disposition decisions for those who present to the hospital rest largely with ED providers, the ED will play an even bigger role in the management of HF patients and in avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations.
The ED is the gatekeeper for AHF evaluations. Nearly one million ED visits for acute heart failure (AHF) occur annually in the United States. Importantly, the ED is the safety net for AHF care and often sole provider of AHF care to vulnerable patients. To optimize care and reduce ED and hospital revisits, there has been significant emphasis on improving transitions at the time of hospital discharge for HF patients. Such efforts have been almost exclusively directed at hospitalized patients; individuals with AHF who are discharged from the ED miss the benefits of transitional care initiatives.
Ensuring optimal transitions of care for discharged ED AHF patients is a critical unmet need. Data show AHF patients discharged from the ED receive suboptimal guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT), suggesting interventions to improve AHF transitions are needed in the ED setting. This is particularly true for patients that are in resource limited settings, many of whom have vulnerable characteristics. By default the ED is often the sole or primary provider of HF care to this group of patients who are discharged from the ED.
The proposal, "Get with the Guidelines in ED Patients with Heart Failure (GUIDED-HF)", is designed to answer two fundamental questions about vulnerable patients with AHF discharged from the ED:
1. Does GWTG:HF implementation by a transition nurse coordinator directed team (TNC Team) reduce disparities in time to ED/clinic revisit or hospital admission or cardiovascular death over the 3-month period immediately following the index ED visit?
2. Does GWTG:HF implementation by a TNC Team reduce disparities in patient satisfaction, HF knowledge and QOL over the 3-month period immediately following the index ED visit?
Patients hospitalized for HF continue to have a high risk of adverse post-discharge outcomes. Although there has been a relative reduction in rehospitalization and mortality rates for AHF patients post-discharge after a significant recent effort by hospitals to avoid CMS financial penalties, the absolute risk remains very high. The one-month post discharge readmission risk is 20-25% and one-year post discharge mortality is 25-30%. These results are from institutions who have implemented significant in-hospital case management programs with a specific focus on transitions of care, including early post-discharge follow-up. ED patients discharged with AHF have more vulnerable characteristics, have a higher risk of readmission, and are not included in hospital programs targeted to help them. This proposal will study a significant unmet need, projected to get worse, and for which no evidence based data currently exist to guide management. Even a modest reduction in the risk for ED revisits or hospital admissions has the potential for significant clinical and patient centric benefits in patients with AHF discharged from the ED.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- COMPLETED
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 529
- Patients deemed by emergency physician to have AHF, who they plan to discharge or hold for brief ED-based observation (less than 23 hours of AHF care)
- Age ≥21 years old
- Prior history of HF
- Unable to comply with protocol- due to psychiatric disease or distance from the hospital
- Systolic BP <100 mmHg
- Evidence of ACS based on ischemia on ECG or Troponin elevation
- Outpatient inotrope infusion
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Arm && Interventions
Group Intervention Description Standard of Care Standard of Care In keeping with the strategy-based pragmatic nature of the trial, the discharge procedures will largely be kept as they are in common practice. Investigators will standardize usual care for ED discharge to include HF medication reconciliation as well as encourage 7-day follow-up. GUIDED-HF GUIDED-HF GWTG:HF has been successfully implemented across multiple inpatient populations and health systems over the last decade and has been shown to improve HF disparities.
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Composite Score Reflective of Clinical Status 90 days from ED discharge Participants ranked sequentially. Ranking stratified in 1 of 3 tiers based on:
Lowest tier: CV Death: Ranking based on time to death from original ED discharge date. Participant with the first death = lowest rank in the tier.
Middle tier: ED Re-visit, Hospital Re-admission or Clinic for AHF with IV. For patients alive, ranking based on time to ED Re-visit, Hospital Re-admission or Clinic for AHF with IV from original ED discharge date, whichever occurs first. Participant with first adverse event = lowest rank in the tier.
Highest tier: KCCQ Changes. For patients alive, ranking is based on changes in KCCQ from baseline. Participant with the largest decrease = lowest rank in the tier.
The use of 3 tiers reflects the greater adverse impact of death, followed by adverse impact of Hospital Re-admission, ED Re-visit, clinic for AHF with IV on clinical status, and then health status as measured by KCCQ. The Clinical Events (Composite) updated on 11/19/19 per PCORI study team discussion.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS 7) score Enrollment, 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge The ARMS consists of 7 questions administered verbally by healthcare professionals to assess self-reported adherence to medication for participants. Scores range from 7 to 28 with lower scores indicating better adherence and higher scores indicating worse adherence.
HF Related Quality of Life: Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Enrollment, 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is a 12-item self-administered questionnaire developed to independently measure the patient's perception of their health status. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating lower symptom burden and better QOL. Scores were divided into ranges of 0 to 25 (severe), 26 to 50 (moderate), 51 to 75 (fair), and 76 to 100 (little-to-no disability).
Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety score Enrollment, 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge The PROMIS Anxiety short form consists of 8 questions with five response options ranging in value from 1 to 5 to assess self-reported anxiety for participants. Scores range from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate greater anxiety.
Time spent at clinic office visits 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge Time spent at clinic office visits after ED discharge will be measured in minutes. Increased minutes indicate lower health status
Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression score Enrollment, 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge The PROMIS Depression short form consists of 8 questions with five response options ranging in value from 1 to 5 to assess self-reported anxiety for participants. Scores range from 8 to 40. Higher scores indicate greater depression.
Out-of-pocket costs for work missed 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge Out-of-pocket costs for time missed at work after ED discharge will be measured in dollars. Increased dollars indicate lower health status
Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge score Enrollment, 30 days and 90 days after ED discharge The Dutch Heart Failure Knowledge Scale is a 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that covers items concerning HF knowledge. Scores range from 0 to 15, where a score between 0 and 7 indicates a lack of awareness and a score between 8 and 15 indicates a complete knowledge of the disease.
Trial Locations
- Locations (15)
Emory University
🇺🇸Atlanta, Georgia, United States
University of Iowa
🇺🇸Iowa City, Iowa, United States
Wayne State University
🇺🇸Detroit, Michigan, United States
Stony Brook University
🇺🇸Stony Brook, New York, United States
Washington University
🇺🇸Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
🇺🇸Nashville, Tennessee, United States
VA Tennessee Valley Health System
🇺🇸Nashville, Tennessee, United States
UT Southwestern Medical Center
🇺🇸Dallas, Texas, United States
Virginia Commonwealth University
🇺🇸Richmond, Virginia, United States
Baylor College of Medicine
🇺🇸Houston, Texas, United States
Indiana University
🇺🇸Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
MetroHealth
🇺🇸Cleveland, Ohio, United States
University of Cincinnati
🇺🇸Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
University of Mississippi Medical Center
🇺🇸Jackson, Mississippi, United States
Thomas Jefferson University
🇺🇸Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States