Challenges in heart failure care in four European countries: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, more than 15 million people live with heart failure (HF). It imposes an enormous social, organizational and economic burden. As a reaction to impending impact on healthcare provision, different country-specific structures for HF-care have been established. The aim of this report is to provide an overview and compare the HF-care approaches of Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, and to open the possibility of learning from each other's experience. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was implemented that included a literature analysis, interviews and questionnaires with HF-patients and caregivers, and expert interviews with representatives from healthcare, health service research and medical informatics. RESULTS: The models of HF-care in all countries analyzed are based on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of HF. Even though the HF-models differed in design and implementation in practice, key challenges were similar: (i) unequal distribution of care between urban and rural areas, (ii) long waiting times, (iii) unequal access to and provision of healthcare services, (iv) information and communication gaps and (v) inadequate implementation and financing of digital applications. CONCLUSION: Although promising approaches exist to structure and improve HF-care, across the four countries, implementation was reluctant to embrace novel methods. A lack of financial resources and insufficient digitalization making it difficult to adopt new concepts. Integration of HF-nurses seems to be an effective way of improving current models of HF-care. Digital solutions offer further opportunities to overcome communication and coordination gaps and to strengthen self-management skills.

Telemonitoring in patients with heart failure: Is there a long-term effect?

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that telemonitoring decreases mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospital admission in patients with HF. However, most studies follow their patients for only several months. Little is known about the long-term effects of telemonitoring after a period of application. METHODS: In 2007, the TEHAF study was initiated to compare tailored telemonitoring with usual care with respect to time until first HF-related hospital admission. In total, 301 patients completed the study after a follow-up period of one year. No differences could be found in time to first HF-related admission between intervention and control groups. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis in order to investigate potential long-term effects of telemonitoring. The primary endpoint was time to first HF-related hospital admission. Secondary endpoints were, amongst others, all-cause mortality, hospital admission due to HF and days alive and out of hospital (DAOOH). Electronic files of all included patients were reviewed between October 2007 and September 2015. RESULT: Mean follow-up duration was 1652 days (standard deviation: 1055 days). No significant difference in time to first HF-related hospital admission (log-rank test, p = 0.15), all-cause mortality (log-rank test, p = 0.43), or DAOOH (two-sample t-test, p = 0.87) could be found. However, patients that underwent telemonitoring had significantly fewer HF-related hospital admissions (incident rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.31-0.88). DISCUSSION: Telemonitoring did not significantly influence the long-term outcome in our study. Therefore, extending the follow-up period of telemonitoring studies in HF patients is probably not beneficial.