Rita Jermyn1, Amit Alam1, Jessica Kvasic1, Omar Saeed2, Ulrich Jorde2. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Northwell Health, Manhasset, New York. 2. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The real-world impact of remote pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) monitoring on New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement and heart failure (HF) hospitalization rate is presented here from a single center. HYPOTHESIS: METHODS: Seventy-seven previously hospitalized outpatients with NYHA class III HF were offeredPAP monitoring via device implantation in a multidisciplinary HF-management program. Prospective effectiveness analyses compared outcomes in 34 hemodynamically monitored patients to a group of similar patients (n = 32) who did not undergo device implantation but received usual care. NYHA class and 6-minute walk testing were assessed at baseline and 90 days. All hospitalizations were collected after 6 months of the implantation date (average follow-up, 15 months) and compared with the number of hospitalizations experienced prior to hemodynamic monitoring. RESULTS: Patients in both groups had similar distributions of age, sex, and ejection fraction. After 90 days, 61.8% of the monitored patients had NYHA class improvement of ≥1, compared with 12.5% in the controls (P < 0.001). Distance walked in 6 minutes increased by 54.5 meters in the monitored group (253.0 ± 25.6 meters to 307.4 ± 26.3 meters; P < 0.005), whereas no change was seen in the usual-care group. After implantation, 19.4% of the monitored group had ≥1 HF hospitalization, compared with 100% who had been hospitalized in the year prior to implantation. The monitored group had a significantly lower HF hospitalization rate (0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.35 hospitalizations/patient-year) compared with the year prior (1.0 hospitalizations/patient-year; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Hemodynamic-guided HF management leads to significant improvements in NYHA class and HF hospitalization rate in a real-world setting compared with usual care delivered in a comprehensive disease-management program.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The real-world impact of remote pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) monitoring on New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement and heart failure (HF) hospitalization rate is presented here from a single center. HYPOTHESIS: METHODS: Seventy-seven previously hospitalized outpatients with NYHA class III HF were offered PAP monitoring via device implantation in a multidisciplinary HF-management program. Prospective effectiveness analyses compared outcomes in 34 hemodynamically monitored patients to a group of similar patients (n = 32) who did not undergo device implantation but received usual care. NYHA class and 6-minute walk testing were assessed at baseline and 90 days. All hospitalizations were collected after 6 months of the implantation date (average follow-up, 15 months) and compared with the number of hospitalizations experienced prior to hemodynamic monitoring. RESULTS:Patients in both groups had similar distributions of age, sex, and ejection fraction. After 90 days, 61.8% of the monitored patients had NYHA class improvement of ≥1, compared with 12.5% in the controls (P < 0.001). Distance walked in 6 minutes increased by 54.5 meters in the monitored group (253.0 ± 25.6 meters to 307.4 ± 26.3 meters; P < 0.005), whereas no change was seen in the usual-care group. After implantation, 19.4% of the monitored group had ≥1 HF hospitalization, compared with 100% who had been hospitalized in the year prior to implantation. The monitored group had a significantly lower HF hospitalization rate (0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.35 hospitalizations/patient-year) compared with the year prior (1.0 hospitalizations/patient-year; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic-guided HF management leads to significant improvements in NYHA class and HF hospitalization rate in a real-world setting compared with usual care delivered in a comprehensive disease-management program.
Authors: Arthur J Moss; Wojciech Zareba; W Jackson Hall; Helmut Klein; David J Wilber; David S Cannom; James P Daubert; Steven L Higgins; Mary W Brown; Mark L Andrews Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amresh Raina; William T Abraham; Philip B Adamson; Jordan Bauman; Raymond L Benza Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Gust H Bardy; Kerry L Lee; Daniel B Mark; Jeanne E Poole; Douglas L Packer; Robin Boineau; Michael Domanski; Charles Troutman; Jill Anderson; George Johnson; Steven E McNulty; Nancy Clapp-Channing; Linda D Davidson-Ray; Elizabeth S Fraulo; Daniel P Fishbein; Richard M Luceri; John H Ip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-01-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarwat I Chaudhry; Jennifer A Mattera; Jeptha P Curtis; John A Spertus; Jeph Herrin; Zhenqiu Lin; Christopher O Phillips; Beth V Hodshon; Lawton S Cooper; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marc A Pfeffer; Karl Swedberg; Christopher B Granger; Peter Held; John J V McMurray; Eric L Michelson; Bertil Olofsson; Jan Ostergren; Salim Yusuf; Stuart Pocock Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-09-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William T Abraham; Lynne W Stevenson; Robert C Bourge; Jo Ann Lindenfeld; Jordan G Bauman; Philip B Adamson Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christiane E Angermann; Birgit Assmus; Stefan D Anker; Johannes Brachmann; Georg Ertl; Friedrich Köhler; Stephan Rosenkranz; Carsten Tschöpe; Philip B Adamson; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-05-19 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jeffrey S Tran; Aaron M Wolfson; Daniel O'Brien; Omid Yousefian; David M Shavelle Journal: Cardiol Res Pract Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 1.866