"It's Somebody else's responsibility" - perceptions of general practitioners, heart failure nurses, care home staff, and residents towards heart failure diagnosis and management for older people in long-term care: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Older people in care-facilities may be less likely to access gold standard diagnosis and treatment for heart failure (HF) than non residents; little is understood about the factors that influence this variability. This study aimed to examine the experiences and expectations of clinicians, care-facility staff and residents in interpreting suspected symptoms of HF and deciding whether and how to intervene. METHODS: This was a nested qualitative study using in-depth interviews with older residents with a diagnosis of heart failure (n=17), care-facility staff (n=8), HF nurses (n=3) and general practitioners (n=5). RESULTS: Participants identified a lack of clear lines of responsibility in providing HF care in care-facilities. Many clinical staff expressed negative assumptions about the acceptability and utility of interventions, and inappropriately moderated residents' access to HF diagnosis and treatment. Care-facility staff and residents welcomed intervention but experienced a lack of opportunity for dialogue about the balance of risks and benefits. Most residents wanted to be involved in healthcare decisions but physical, social and organisational barriers precluded this. An onsite HF service offered a potential solution and proved to be acceptable to residents and care-facility staff. CONCLUSIONS: HF diagnosis and management is of variable quality in long-term care. Conflicting expectations and a lack of co-ordinated responsibility for care, contribute to a culture of benign neglect that excludes the wishes and needs of residents. A greater focus on rights, responsibilities and co-ordination may improve healthcare quality for older people in care. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN: ISRCTN19781227.

Early invasive versus conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis--no late survival benefit: the final analysis of the Middlesbrough Early Revascularisation to Limit Infarction (MERLIN) randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Early (30 days) and midterm (6 months) clinical outcomes in trials comparing rescue angioplasty (rescue percutaneous coronary intervention [rPCI]) with conservative treatment of failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction have shown variable results. Whether early rPCI confers late (up to 3 years) clinical benefits is not known. METHODS: The MERLIN trial compared rPCI and a conservative strategy in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Three hundred seven patients with electrocardiographic evidence of failure to reperfuse at 60 minutes were included. Patients in cardiogenic shock were excluded. Thirty-day and 1-year results have been reported. Results of 3 years of follow-up are presented. RESULTS: Three-year mortality in the conservative arm and rPCI, respectively, was 16.9% versus 17.6% (P = .9, relative difference [RD] -0.8, 95% CI [-9.3 to 7.8]). Death rates were similar (3.9% vs 3.2%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up, respectively. The incidence of the composite secondary end point of death, reinfarction, stroke, unplanned revascularization, or heart failure was significantly higher in the conservative arm (64.3% vs 49%, P = .01, RD 15.3, 95% CI [4.2-26]). There was no significant difference in the rate of reinfarction (0.7% vs 0.7%) or heart failure (1.3% vs 2.7%) between 1 and 3 years between the conservative and rPCI arms, respectively. The incidence of subsequent unplanned revascularization at 3 years was significantly higher in the conservative arm (33.8% vs 14.4%, P < .01, RD 19.4, 95% CI [10-28.7]), most of which occurred within 1 year; the rates between 1 and 3 years were 3.9% in the conservative arm versus 2% in the rPCI arm. There was a trend toward fewer strokes in the conservative arm at 3 years (conservative arm 2.6% vs rPCI 6.5%, P = .1, RD -3.9%, 95% CI [-9.4 to 0.8]), with similar stroke rates (1.3% vs 1.3%) between 1- and 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue angioplasty did not confer a late survival advantage at 3 years. The composite end point occurred less often in the rPCI arm mainly because of fewer unplanned revascularization procedures in the early phase of follow-up. The highest risk of clinical events in patients with failed reperfusion is in the first year, beyond which the rate of clinical events is low.

A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND: Most patients with STEMI receive fibrinolytic therapy and aspirin. The management of failed fibrinolysis is unclear. METHODS: A total of 307 patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis were randomized to emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-day all-cause mortality was similar in the rescue and conservative groups (9.8% vs. 11%, p = 0.7, risk difference [RD] 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.8 to 8.3). The composite secondary end point of death/re-infarction/stroke/subsequent revascularization/heart failure occurred less frequently in the rescue group (37.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.02, RD 12.7%, 95% CI 1.6 to 23.5), driven by less subsequent revascularization (6.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.01, RD 13.6%, 95% CI 6.2 to 21.4). Re-infarction and clinical heart failure were less common in the rescue group (7.2% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.3, RD 3.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 9.9; and 24.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.3, RD 5.7%, 95% CI -4.3 to 15.6, respectively). Strokes and transfusions were more common in the rescue group (4.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.03, RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.5 to 8.6; and 11.1% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001, RD 9.8%, 95% CI 4.9 to 19.9, respectively). Left ventricular function at 30 days was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rescue angioplasty did not improve survival by 30 days, but improved event-free survival, almost completely due to a reduction in subsequent revascularization. Rescue angioplasty was associated with more strokes and more transfusions and did not result in preservation of left ventricular systolic function at 30 days.

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 ß-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.

Utility of biomarkers in the differential diagnosis of heart failure in older people: findings from the heart failure in care homes (HFinCH) diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: The performance of biomarkers for heart failure (HF) in older residents in long-term care is poorly understood and has not differentiated between left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS: This is the first diagnostic accuracy study in this population to assess the differential diagnostic performance and acceptability of a range of biomarkers against a clinical diagnosis using portable echocardiography. A total of 405 residents, aged 65-100 years (mean 84.2), in 33 UK long-term care facilities were enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. RESULTS: For undifferentiated HF, BNP or NT-proBNP were adequate rule-out tests but would miss one in three cases (BNP: sensitivity 67%, NPV 86%, cut-off 115 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 62%, NPV 87%, cut-off 760 pg/ml). Using higher test cut-offs, both biomarkers were more adequate tests of LVSD, but would still miss one in four cases (BNP: sensitivity 76%, NPV 97%, cut-off 145 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 73%, NPV 97%, cut-off 1000 pg/ml). At these thresholds one third of subjects would test positive and require an echocardiogram. Applying a stricter 'rule out' threshold (sensitivity 90%), only one in 10 cases would be missed, but two thirds of subjects would require further investigation. Biomarkers were less useful for HFpEF (BNP: sensitivity 63%, specificity 61%, cut-off 110 pg/ml; NT-proBNP: sensitivity 68%, specificity 56%, cut-off 477 pg/ml). Novel biomarkers (Copeptin, MR-proADM, and MR-proANP) and common signs and symptoms had little diagnostic utility. CONCLUSIONS: No test, individually or in combination, adequately balanced case finding and rule-out for heart failure in this population; currently, in-situ echocardiography provides the only adequate diagnostic assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN19781227.

High prevalence of undetected heart failure in long-term care residents: findings from the Heart Failure in Care Homes (HFinCH) study.

AIMS: Diagnosis of heart failure in older people in long-term care is challenging because of co-morbidities, cognitive deficit, polypharmacy, immobility, and poor access to services. This study aimed to ascertain heart failure prevalence and clinical management in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 405 residents, aged 65-100 years, in 33 UK care facilities were prospectively enrolled between April 2009 and June 2010. The presence of heart failure was determined using European Society of Cardiology guidelines, modified where necessary for immobility. Evaluation of symptoms and signs, functional capacity, and quality of life, portable on-site echocardiography, and medical record review were completed in 399 cases. The point prevalence of heart failure was 22.8% [n = 91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8-27.2%]; of these, 62.7% (n = 57, 95% CI 59.6-66.5%) had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and 37.3% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction (n = 34, 95% CI 34.8-40.5%). A total of 76% (n = 61) of previous diagnoses of heart failure were not confirmed, and up to 90% (n = 82) of study cases were new. No symptoms or signs were reliable predictors of heart failure. CONCLUSION: Heart failure was diagnosed in almost a quarter of residents: the prevalence was substantially higher than in other populations. The majority of heart failure cases were undiagnosed, while three-quarters of previously recorded cases were misdiagnosed. Common symptoms and signs appear to have little clinical utility in this population. Early, accurate differential diagnosis is key to the effective management of heart failure; this may be failing in long-term care facilities.

Using the method of judgement analysis to address variations in diagnostic decision making.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure is not a clear-cut diagnosis but a complex clinical syndrome with consequent diagnostic uncertainty. Judgment analysis is a method to help clinical teams to understand how they make complex decisions. The method of judgment analysis was used to determine the factors that influence clinicians' diagnostic decisions about heart failure. METHODS: Three consultants, three middle grade doctors, and two junior doctors each evaluated 45 patient scenarios. The main outcomes were: clinicians' decisions whether or not to make a diagnosis of suspected heart failure; the relative importance of key factors within and between clinician groups in making these decisions, and the acceptability of the scenarios. RESULTS: The method was able to discriminate between important and unimportant factors in clinicians' diagnostic decisions. Junior and consultant physicians tended to use patient information similarly, although junior doctors placed particular weight on the chest X-Ray. Middle-grade doctors tended to use information differently but their diagnostic decisions agreed with consultants more frequently (k = 0.47) than junior doctors and consultants (k = 0.23), or middle grade and junior grade doctors (k = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Judgment analysis is a potentially valuable method to assess influences upon diagnostic decisions, helping clinicians to manage the quality assurance process through evaluation of care and continuing professional development.