Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Health Expect ; 18(4): 504-15, 2015 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23418785

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: English NHS guidance emphasizes the importance of involving users in commissioning cancer services. There has been considerable previous research on involving users in service improvement, but not on involvement in commissioning cancer services. OBJECTIVE: To identify how users were involved as local cancer service commissioning projects sought to implement good practice and what has been learned. DESIGN: Participatory evaluation with four qualitative case studies based on semi-structured interviews with project stakeholders, observation and documentary analysis. Users were involved in every stage from design to analysis and reporting. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four English cancer network user involvement in commissioning projects, with 22 stakeholders interviewed. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified nine themes: initial involvement, preparation for the role, ability to exercise voice, consistency and continuity, where decisions are made, closing the feedback loop, assessing impact, value of experience and diversity. DISCUSSION: Our findings on the impact of user involvement in commissioning cancer services are consistent with other findings on user involvement in service improvement, but highlight the specific issues for involvement in commissioning. Key points include the different perspectives users and professionals may have on the impact of user involvement in commissioning, the time necessary for meaningful involvement, the importance of involving users from the beginning and the value of senior management and PPI facilitator support and training. CONCLUSIONS: Users can play an important role in commissioning cancer services, but their ability to do so is contingent on resources being available to support them.


Assuntos
Comportamento Cooperativo , Gerenciamento Clínico , Neoplasias/terapia , Participação do Paciente/métodos , Medicina Estatal/organização & administração , Inglaterra , Humanos , Capacitação em Serviço , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Fatores de Tempo
2.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 24(12): 2275-2284, 2022 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35855646

RESUMO

AIMS: This pilot study aimed to assess the potential benefits of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a prospective, multicentre, single-arm, pilot study of CCM therapy in patients with HFpEF and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III. Echocardiographic parameters were measured by an echo core laboratory to determine study eligibility. After CCM device implantation, patients were followed for 24 weeks. Overall, 47 patients (mean age 74.3 ± 4.4 years, 70.2% female) were enrolled, with left ventricular ejection fraction of 59 ± 4.4%, 63.8% with hypertension, 46.8% with atrial fibrillation, 40.4% with diabetes, 31.9% with at least one heart failure hospitalization in the prior year, 61.7% in NYHA class III, and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score of 48.9 ± 21.7. The primary efficacy endpoint (mean change in the KCCQ overall summary score) improved by 18.0 ± 16.6 points (p < 0.001) and there was an event-free rate of 93.6% for the primary safety endpoint (device- and procedure-related complications), as adjudicated by an independent physician committee. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that the benefits of CCM may extend to the HFpEF patient population. The significant improvement in health status observed, with no obvious impact on safety, suggests that utilization of CCM for patients with HFpEF could prove to be promising.


Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Masculino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Volume Sistólico , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Prospectivos , Função Ventricular Esquerda , Nível de Saúde
3.
Circ Heart Fail ; 13(4): e006512, 2020 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32264716

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) employed a 3-lead Optimizer system. A new 2-lead system eliminated the need for an atrial lead. This study tested the safety and effectiveness of this 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system. METHODS: Patients with New York Heart Association III/IVa symptoms despite medical therapy, left ventricular ejection fraction 25% to 45%, and not eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy could participate. All subjects received an Optimizer 2-lead implant. The primary end point was the estimated difference in the change of peak VO2 from baseline to 24 weeks between FIX-HF-5C2 (2-lead system) subjects relative to control subjects from the prior FIX-HF-5C (3-lead system) study. Changes in New York Heart Association were a secondary end point. The primary safety end point was a comparison of device-related adverse events between FIX-HF-5C2 and FIX-HF-5C subjects. RESULTS: Sixty subjects, 88% male, 66±9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34±6% were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between FIX-HF-5C and FIX-HF-5C2 subjects except that 15% of FIX-HF-5C2 subjects had permanent atrial fibrillation versus 0% in FIX-HF-5C. CCM delivery did not differ significantly between 2- and 3-lead systems (19 892±3472 versus 19 583±4998 CCM signals/day, CI of difference [-1228 to 1847]). The change of peak VO2 from baseline to 24 weeks was 1.72 (95% Bayesian credible interval, 1.02-2.42) mL/kg per minute greater in the 2-lead device group versus controls. 83.1% of 2-lead subjects compared with 42.7% of controls experienced ≥1 class New York Heart Association improvement (P<0.001). There were decreased Optimizer-related adverse events with the 2-lead system compared with the 3-lead system (0% versus 8%; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The 2-lead system effectively delivers comparable amount of CCM signals (including in subjects with atrial fibrillation) as the 3-lead system, is equally safe and improves peak VO2 and New York Heart Association. Device-related adverse effects are less with the 2-lead system. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03339310.


Assuntos
Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Contração Miocárdica , Marca-Passo Artificial , Volume Sistólico , Função Ventricular Esquerda , Idoso , Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial/efeitos adversos , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/diagnóstico , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
JACC Heart Fail ; 6(10): 874-883, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29754812

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to confirm a subgroup analysis of the prior FIX-HF-5 (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure) study showing that cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) improved exercise tolerance (ET) and quality of life in patients with ejection fractions between 25% and 45%. BACKGROUND: CCM therapy for New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III and IV heart failure (HF) patients consists of nonexcitatory electrical signals delivered to the heart during the absolute refractory period. METHODS: A total of 160 patients with NYHA functional class III or IV symptoms, QRS duration <130 ms, and ejection fraction ≥25% and ≤45% were randomized to continued medical therapy (control, n = 86) or CCM (treatment, n = 74, unblinded) for 24 weeks. Peak Vo2 (primary endpoint), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire, NYHA functional class, and 6-min hall walk were measured at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Bayesian repeated measures linear modeling was used for the primary endpoint analysis with 30% borrowing from the FIX-HF-5 subgroup. Safety was assessed by the percentage of patients free of device-related adverse events with a pre-specified lower bound of 70%. RESULTS: The difference in peak Vo2 between groups was 0.84 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.123 to 1.552) ml O2/kg/min, satisfying the primary endpoint. Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire (p < 0.001), NYHA functional class (p < 0.001), and 6-min hall walk (p = 0.02) were all better in the treatment versus control group. There were 7 device-related events, yielding a lower bound of 80% of patients free of events, satisfying the primary safety endpoint. The composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalizations was reduced from 10.8% to 2.9% (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: CCM is safe, improves exercise tolerance and quality of life in the specified group of HF patients, and leads to fewer HF hospitalizations. (Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the OPTIMIZER System in Subjects With Moderate-to-Severe Heart Failure; NCT01381172).


Assuntos
Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Contração Miocárdica , Estimulação Elétrica/efeitos adversos , Estimulação Elétrica/instrumentação , Eletrodos Implantados , Teste de Esforço , Tolerância ao Exercício , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/mortalidade , Insuficiência Cardíaca/fisiopatologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Qualidade de Vida , Volume Sistólico/fisiologia , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA