Takeda Andrea, Taylor Stephanie J C, Taylor Rod S, Khan Faisal, Krum Henry, Underwood Martin
Queen Mary University of London, Barts & The London School of Medicine, Research Design Service, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Blizard Institute, London, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12(9):CD002752. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002752.pub3.
Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a serious, common condition associated with frequent hospitalisation. Several different disease management interventions (clinical service organisation interventions) for patients with CHF have been proposed.
To update the previously published review which assessed the effectiveness of disease management interventions for patients with CHF.
A number of databases were searched for the updated review: CENTRAL, (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and DARE, on The Cochrane Library, ( Issue 1 2009); MEDLINE (1950-January 2009); EMBASE (1980-January 2009); CINAHL (1982-January 2009); AMED (1985-January 2009). For the original review (but not the update) we had also searched: Science Citation Index Expanded (1981-2001); SIGLE (1980-2003); National Research Register (2003) and NHS Economic Evaluations Database (2001). We also searched reference lists of included studies for both the original and updated reviews.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months follow up, comparing disease management interventions specifically directed at patients with CHF to usual care.
At least two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Study authors were contacted for further information where necessary. Data were analysed and presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Twenty five trials (5,942 people) were included. Interventions were classified by: (1) case management interventions (intense monitoring of patients following discharge often involving telephone follow up and home visits); (2) clinic interventions (follow up in a CHF clinic) and (3) multidisciplinary interventions (holistic approach bridging the gap between hospital admission and discharge home delivered by a team). The components, intensity and duration of the interventions varied, as did the 'usual care' comparator provided in different trials.Case management interventions were associated with reduction in all cause mortality at 12 months follow up, OR 0.66 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.91, but not at six months. No reductions were seen for deaths from CHF or cardiovascular causes. However, case management type interventions reduced CHF related readmissions at six month (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88, P = 0.007) and 12 month follow up (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.76). Impact of these interventions on all cause hospital admissions was not apparent at six months but was at 12 months (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99, I(2) = 58%). CHF clinic interventions (for six and 12 month follow up) revealed non-significant reductions in all cause mortality, CHF related admissions and all cause readmissions. Mortality was not reduced in the two studies that looked at multidisciplinary interventions. However, both all cause and CHF related readmissions were reduced (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, and 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.72, respectively).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amongst CHF patients who have previously been admitted to hospital for this condition there is now good evidence that case management type interventions led by a heart failure specialist nurse reduces CHF related readmissions after 12 months follow up, all cause readmissions and all cause mortality. It is not possible to say what the optimal components of these case management type interventions are, however telephone follow up by the nurse specialist was a common component.Multidisciplinary interventions may be effective in reducing both CHF and all cause readmissions. There is currently limited evidence to support interventions whose major component is follow up in a CHF clinic.
慢性心力衰竭(CHF)是一种严重且常见的病症,常伴有频繁住院。已提出针对CHF患者的几种不同疾病管理干预措施(临床服务组织干预措施)。
更新先前发表的综述,该综述评估了针对CHF患者的疾病管理干预措施的有效性。
为更新该综述,检索了多个数据库:Cochrane图书馆(2009年第1期)中的CENTRAL(Cochrane对照试验中心注册库)和DARE;MEDLINE(1950年 - 2009年1月);EMBASE(1980年 - 2009年1月);CINAHL(1982年 - 2009年1月);AMED(1985年 - 2009年1月)。对于原始综述(而非更新版),我们还检索了:科学引文索引扩展版(1981年 - 2001年);SIGLE(1980年 - 2003年);国家研究注册库(2003年)和NHS经济评估数据库(2001年)。我们还检索了原始综述和更新综述中纳入研究的参考文献列表。
随访至少六个月的随机对照试验(RCT),比较专门针对CHF患者的疾病管理干预措施与常规护理。
至少两名评审员独立提取数据并评估研究质量。必要时与研究作者联系以获取更多信息。数据进行分析并以比值比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI)呈现。
纳入了25项试验(5942人)。干预措施分类如下:(1)病例管理干预措施(出院后对患者进行强化监测,通常包括电话随访和家访);(2)诊所干预措施(在CHF诊所进行随访);(3)多学科干预措施(由一个团队采用整体方法弥合住院与出院回家之间的差距)。干预措施的组成部分、强度和持续时间各不相同,不同试验中提供的“常规护理”对照也有所不同。病例管理干预措施与12个月随访时全因死亡率降低相关,OR为0.66(95%CI 0.47至0.91),但6个月时未降低。CHF或心血管原因导致的死亡未见减少。然而,病例管理类型的干预措施在6个月(OR 0.64,95%CI 0.46至0.88,P = 0.007)和12个月随访时降低了CHF相关再入院率(OR 0.47,95%CI 0.30至0.76)。这些干预措施对全因住院率的影响在6个月时不明显,但在12个月时明显(OR 0.75,95%CI 0.57至0.99,I² = 58%)。CHF诊所干预措施(6个月和12个月随访)显示全因死亡率、CHF相关入院率和全因再入院率有不显著降低。在两项涉及多学科干预措施的研究中,死亡率未降低。然而,全因和CHF相关再入院率均降低(分别为OR 0.46,95%CI 0.46 - 0.69和OR 0.45,95%CI 0.28 - 0.72)。
在先前因该病症入院的CHF患者中,现有充分证据表明由心力衰竭专科护士主导的病例管理类型干预措施在12个月随访后可降低CHF相关再入院率、全因再入院率和全因死亡率。然而,无法确定这些病例管理类型干预措施的最佳组成部分是什么,不过护士专科的电话随访是一个常见组成部分。多学科干预措施可能有效降低CHF和全因再入院率。目前支持主要组成部分为在CHF诊所进行随访的干预措施的证据有限。