Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
J Card Fail. 2011 Mar;17(3):224-30. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2010.10.010. Epub 2010 Dec 24.
Despite the evidence that beta-adrenoreceptor blocking agents (BBs) improve patient outcomes, they are often used in inappropriately low doses.
We examined the effect of nurse-led titration (NLT) on use of BBs in community-based heart failure (HF) programs. Thirty-three community-based HF program coordinators throughout Australia recruited 484 patients diagnosed with systolic dysfunction and ≥1 earlier hospitalization for decompensated HF. Patients were followed for 6 months to determine prescribing patterns, hospitalization, and mortality rates. Patient outcomes in programs with NLT of BBs were compared with those in programs that did not allow such titration (usual care [UC]). At baseline, there were significantly higher proportions of New York Heart Association functional class I and II patients in NLT programs compared with UC programs (36% class I and 42% class II vs 31% and 37%, respectively; P = .02). At 6 months, 85 patients (47%) participating in UC programs had no change in dosage from baseline to 6 months, compared with 58 patients (39%) participating in NLT programs (P < .0001). Patients in NLT programs were also more likely to be prescribed at target dose (48% NLT vs 36% UC; P = .05). The composite of all-cause hospitalizations and mortality was lower in patients participating in programs allowing NLT (hazard ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.81; P = .001).
NLT of BBs in the community may result in optimization of target doses, which may lead to an improvement in outcomes for patients with HF.
尽管有证据表明β肾上腺素能受体阻滞剂(BBs)可改善患者预后,但它们的使用剂量往往过低。
我们研究了护士主导的滴定(NLT)对社区心力衰竭(HF)计划中 BB 使用的影响。澳大利亚各地的 33 个社区 HF 计划协调员招募了 484 名患有收缩功能障碍和≥1 次因失代偿性 HF 住院的患者。对患者进行了 6 个月的随访,以确定处方模式、住院和死亡率。将接受 BBs NLT 的计划中的患者的结果与不允许这种滴定的计划(常规护理[UC])中的患者的结果进行比较。在基线时,NLT 计划中纽约心脏协会功能分类 I 和 II 患者的比例明显高于 UC 计划(分别为 36%和 42%)(分别为 31%和 37%;P=0.02)。在 6 个月时,与 UC 计划相比,85 名(47%)接受 UC 计划治疗的患者在从基线到 6 个月的治疗过程中没有改变剂量,而接受 NLT 计划的 58 名患者(39%)改变剂量(P<0.0001)。NLT 计划中的患者也更有可能被开处方至目标剂量(48%的 NLT 患者 vs 36%的 UC 患者;P=0.05)。允许 NLT 的计划中的患者的全因住院和死亡率的复合终点更低(危险比 0.58,95%置信区间 0.42-0.81;P=0.001)。
在社区中对 BB 进行 NLT 可能会优化目标剂量,从而改善 HF 患者的结局。