BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the recognized benefit of intervention programs in patients with heart failure (HF), it is unknown whether different types of programs have similar efficacy. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of three different types of intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 208 patients discharged with the diagnosis of HF were randomized. Fifty-two were assigned to each one of different groups of intervention (home visits, telephone follow-up, HF unit) and 52 patients to usual care (control group). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10.8±3.2 months. During the study, the primary end point (HF hospitalization or death) was reached in: 20 patients (38.5%) in control group, 19 (36.5%) in telephone follow-up (HR 1.11; IC95% [0.59-2.01], p=0.79), 24 (46.2%) in home visits (HR 1.27; IC95% [0.69-2.32], p=0.78) and 23 patients (44.2%) in HF unit (HR 1.33; IC95% [0.73-0.42], p=0.79). There was a trend to higher hospitalizations (shorter) with lower mortality in intervention groups (mortality: 23.1% intervention groups vs 33.3% in control group, HR 0.61 IC al 95% [0.35-1.01], p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the application of three different intervention programs in patients with HF has a little non-significant prognosis benefit, with a slight increase in the number of shorts hospitalizations in HF unit.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the recognized benefit of intervention programs in patients with heart failure (HF), it is unknown whether different types of programs have similar efficacy. The aim of our study was to compare the effectiveness of three different types of intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 208 patients discharged with the diagnosis of HF were randomized. Fifty-two were assigned to each one of different groups of intervention (home visits, telephone follow-up, HF unit) and 52 patients to usual care (control group). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 10.8±3.2 months. During the study, the primary end point (HF hospitalization or death) was reached in: 20 patients (38.5%) in control group, 19 (36.5%) in telephone follow-up (HR 1.11; IC95% [0.59-2.01], p=0.79), 24 (46.2%) in home visits (HR 1.27; IC95% [0.69-2.32], p=0.78) and 23 patients (44.2%) in HF unit (HR 1.33; IC95% [0.73-0.42], p=0.79). There was a trend to higher hospitalizations (shorter) with lower mortality in intervention groups (mortality: 23.1% intervention groups vs 33.3% in control group, HR 0.61 IC al 95% [0.35-1.01], p=0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the application of three different intervention programs in patients with HF has a little non-significant prognosis benefit, with a slight increase in the number of shorts hospitalizations in HF unit.