Dynamic evolution of tricuspid regurgitation during hospitalization in patients with acute decompensated heart failure.

AIMS: Secondary tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with poor prognosis in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). However, its dynamic evolution in response to volume status and treatment has never been previously investigated. In this study, we sought to explore the in-hospital evolution of TR in ADHF patients and to assess its prognostic implications. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively enrolled patients admitted for ADHF with ≥2 in-hospital echocardiographic evaluations of TR. Patients were categorized, according to TR evolution, into persistent moderate-severe TR, improved TR (from moderate-severe to trivial-mild) and persistent trivial-mild TR. The primary endpoint was a composite of 5-year all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). A total of 1054 patients were included. Of 318 patients (30%) with moderate-severe TR at admission, 49% improved TR severity and showed better trends of decongestion, whereas those who maintained persistent moderate-severe TR had characteristics of more severe heart failure at admission and discharge. Atrial fibrillation, previous heart failure and higher dosage of loop diuretics before admission were associated with a lower probability of improved TR. After adjustment, improved TR was associated with lower risk of 5-year all-cause mortality/HFH compared with persistent moderate-severe TR (hazard ratio [HR] 0.524, p = 0.008) and no different from persistent trivial-mild TR (HR 0.878, p = 0.575). Results were consistent across all subgroups of in-hospital variation of mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: Among ADHF patients with moderate-severe TR at admission, 49% had an in-hospital improvement in TR severity, which was associated with a reduction in risk of 5-year all-cause mortality and morbidity outcomes.

Impacts of patient and family engagement in hospital planning and improvement: qualitative interviews with patient/family advisors and hospital staff.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) in hospital planning and improvement is widespread, yet we lack evidence of its impact. We aimed to identify benefits and harms that could be used to assess the impact of hospital PE. METHODS: We interviewed hospital-affiliated persons involved in PE activities using a qualitative descriptive approach and inductive content analysis to derive themes. We interpreted themes by mapping to an existing framework of healthcare performance measures and reported themes with exemplar quotes. RESULTS: Participants included 38 patient/family advisors, PE managers and clinicians from 9 hospitals (2 < 100 beds, 4 100 + beds, 3 teaching). Benefits of PE activities included 9 impacts on the capacity of hospitals. PE activities involved patient/family advisors and clinicians/staff in developing and spreading new PE processes across hospital units or departments, and those involved became more adept and engaged. PE had beneficial effects on hospital structures/resources, clinician staff functions and processes, patient experience and patient outcomes. A total of 14 beneficial impacts of PE were identified across these domains. Few unintended or harmful impacts were identified: overextended patient/family advisors, patient/family advisor turnover and clinician frustration if PE slowed the pace of planning and improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The 23 self reported impacts were captured in a Framework of Impacts of Patient/Family Engagement on Hospital Planning and Improvement, which can be used by decision-makers to assess and allocate resources to hospital PE, and as the basis for ongoing research on the impacts of hospital PE and how to measure it.