Tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced heart failure: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of palliative care interventions is not widely integrated in chronic heart failure care as the recognition of palliative care needs is perceived as difficult. Tools may facilitate healthcare professionals to identify patients with palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. AIM: To identify tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. DESIGN: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019131896). Evidence of tools' development, evaluation, feasibility, and implementation was sought and described. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches to identify references of tools published until June 2019 were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Hand-searching of references and citations was undertaken. Based on the identified tools, a second electronic search until September 2019 was performed to check whether all evidence about these tools in the context of chronic heart failure was included. RESULTS: Nineteen studies described a total of seven tools. The tools varied in purpose, intended user and properties. The tools have been validated to a limited extent in the context of chronic heart failure and palliative care. Different health care professionals applied the tools in various settings at different moments of the care process. Guidance and instruction about how to apply the tool revealed to be relevant but may be not enough for uptake. Spiritual care needs were perceived as difficult to assess. CONCLUSION: Seven tools were identified which showed different and limited levels of validity in the context of palliative care and chronic heart failure.

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.