RÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Scalable and safe approaches for heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) optimization are needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the safety and effectiveness of a virtual care team guided strategy on GDMT optimization in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: In a multicenter implementation trial, we allocated 252 hospital encounters in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% to a virtual care team guided strategy (107 encounters among 83 patients) or usual care (145 encounters among 115 patients) across 3 centers in an integrated health system. In the virtual care team group, clinicians received up to 1 daily GDMT optimization suggestion from a physician-pharmacist team. The primary effectiveness outcome was in-hospital change in GDMT optimization score (+2 initiations, +1 dose up-titrations, -1 dose down-titrations, -2 discontinuations summed across classes). In-hospital safety outcomes were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. RESULTS: Among 252 encounters, the mean age was 69 ± 14 years, 85 (34%) were women, 35 (14%) were Black, and 43 (17%) were Hispanic. The virtual care team strategy significantly improved GDMT optimization scores vs usual care (adjusted difference: +1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.8; P < 0.001). New initiations (44% vs 23%; absolute difference: +21%; P = 0.001) and net intensifications (44% vs 24%; absolute difference: +20%; P = 0.002) during hospitalization were higher in the virtual care team group, translating to a number needed to intervene of 5 encounters. Overall, 23 (21%) in the virtual care team group and 40 (28%) in usual care experienced 1 or more adverse events (P = 0.30). Acute kidney injury, bradycardia, hypotension, hyperkalemia, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with HFrEF, a virtual care team guided strategy for GDMT optimization was safe and improved GDMT across multiple hospitals in an integrated health system. Virtual teams represent a centralized and scalable approach to optimize GDMT.
Sujet(s)
Défaillance cardiaque , Humains , Femelle , Adulte d'âge moyen , Sujet âgé , Sujet âgé de 80 ans ou plus , Mâle , Débit systolique , Fonction ventriculaire gauche , Hospitalisation , Équipe soignanteRÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND: Antifibrinolytic agents, tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon-aminocaproic acid (EACA), are often used during cardiac surgery to decrease the number of allogenic blood transfusions and to prevent perioperative bleeding. Weight-based TXA dosing regimens have been compared to fixed-dose regimens of EACA with variable outcomes in perioperative blood product transfusions and chest tube output. Serious adverse events, including seizures, have been reported with higher doses of TXA. Fixed-dose TXA regimens have been evaluated in trauma and orthopedic surgery but there is a paucity of evidence in the cardiac surgery population. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To compare the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose TXA versus EACA in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective chart review was conducted at a 793-bed tertiary care academic teaching hospital comparing cardiac surgery patients receiving either fixed-dose TXA 1000 mg followed by a 500-1000 mg infusion or EACA-7.5 g intravenous boluses followed by a 1-1.25 g/h infusion for the duration of the surgery. The major endpoint included chest tube output at 12 h, 24 h, and 7 days postoperatively. Minor endpoints included quantity and incidence of blood product transfusions and reported safety events. RESULTS: There were 1544 patients included. Chest tube output was similar between groups and the TXA group required more intraoperative blood product transfusions (22.7% vs. 18.2%, p = .03). There were no differences in the median quantity of total blood products administered postoperatively at 24 h or at 7 days. Reported safety events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Both fixed-dose TXA and EACA may be considered safe and effective options for antifibrinolytic therapy in cardiac surgery patients.
Sujet(s)
Antifibrinolytiques , Procédures de chirurgie cardiaque , Acide tranéxamique , Acide 6-amino-caproïque , Antifibrinolytiques/effets indésirables , Perte sanguine peropératoire/prévention et contrôle , Procédures de chirurgie cardiaque/effets indésirables , Humains , Études rétrospectives , Acide tranéxamique/effets indésirablesRÉSUMÉ
AIMS: Implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains incomplete. Non-cardiovascular hospitalization may present opportunities for GDMT optimization. We assessed the efficacy and durability of a virtual, multidisciplinary 'GDMT Team' on medical therapy prescription for HFrEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive hospitalizations in patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%) were prospectively identified from 3 February to 1 March 2020 (usual care group) and 2 March to 28 August 2020 (intervention group). Patients with critical illness, de novo heart failure, and systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg in the preceeding 24 hs prior to enrollment were excluded. In the intervention group, a pharmacist-physician GDMT Team provided optimization suggestions to treating teams based on an evidence-based algorithm. The primary outcome was a GDMT optimization score, the sum of positive (+1 for new initiations or up-titrations) and negative therapeutic changes (-1 for discontinuations or down-titrations) at hospital discharge. Serious in-hospital safety events were assessed. Among 278 consecutive encounters with HFrEF, 118 met eligibility criteria; 29 (25%) received usual care and 89 (75%) received the GDMT Team intervention. Among usual care encounters, there were no changes in GDMT prescription during hospitalization. In the intervention group, ß-blocker (72% to 88%; P = 0.01), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (6% to 17%; P = 0.03), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16% to 29%; P = 0.05), and triple therapy (9% to 26%; P < 0.01) prescriptions increased during hospitalization. After adjustment for clinically relevant covariates, the GDMT Team was associated with an increase in GDMT optimization score (+0.58; 95% confidence interval +0.09 to +1.07; P = 0.02). There were no serious in-hospital adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Non-cardiovascular hospitalizations are a potentially safe and effective setting for GDMT optimization. A virtual GDMT Team was associated with improved heart failure therapeutic optimization. This implementation strategy warrants testing in a prospective randomized controlled trial.