Adam D DeVore1,2, Bradi B Granger3, Gregg C Fonarow4,5, Hussein R Al-Khalidi1, Nancy M Albert6, Eldrin F Lewis7, Javed Butler8, Ileana L Piña9, Larry A Allen10, Clyde W Yancy11, Lauren B Cooper12, G Michael Felker1,2, Lisa A Kaltenbach1, A Thomas McRae13, David E Lanfear14, Robert W Harrison1,2, Maghee Disch15, Dan Ariely16, Julie M Miller16, Christopher B Granger1,2, Adrian F Hernandez1,2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, North Carolina. 4. Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 5. Associate Section Editor, JAMA Cardiology. 6. Nursing Institute and Kaufman Center for Heart Failure, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson. 9. Wayne State University and Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan. 10. Adult and Child Consortium for Health Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 11. Division of Cardiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 12. Department of Heart Failure and Transplantation, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 13. Centennial Heart, Nashville, Tennessee. 14. Henry Ford Heart and Vascular Institute, Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Division, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan. 15. American College of Cardiology, Washington, DC. 16. Center for Advanced Hindsight, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Importance: Adoption of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is variable. Interventions to improve guideline-directed medical therapy have failed to consistently achieve target metrics, and limited data exist to inform efforts to improve heart failure quality of care. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care on heart failure outcomes and care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 161 US hospitals and included 5647 patients (2675 intervention vs 2972 usual care) followed up after a hospital discharge for acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The trial was performed from 2017 to 2020, and the date of final follow-up was August 31, 2020. Interventions: Hospitals (n = 82) randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention received regular education of clinicians by a trained group of heart failure and quality improvement experts and audit and feedback on heart failure process measures (eg, use of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF) and outcomes. Hospitals (n = 79) randomized to usual care received access to a generalized heart failure education website. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were a composite of first heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality and change in an opportunity-based composite score for heart failure quality (percentage of recommendations followed). Results: Among 5647 patients (mean age, 63 years; 33% women; 38% Black; 87% chronic heart failure; 49% recent heart failure hospitalization), vital status was known for 5636 (99.8%). Heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 38.6% in the intervention group vs 39.2% in usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05). The baseline quality-of-care score was 42.1% vs 45.5%, respectively, and the change from baseline to follow-up was 2.3% vs -1.0% (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.8% to 7.3%]), with no significant difference between the 2 groups in the odds of achieving a higher composite quality score at last follow-up (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.21]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFrEF in hospitals randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention vs usual care, there was no significant difference in time to first heart failure rehospitalization or death, or in change in a composite heart failure quality-of-care score. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03035474.
Importance: Adoption of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is variable. Interventions to improve guideline-directed medical therapy have failed to consistently achieve target metrics, and limited data exist to inform efforts to improve heart failure quality of care. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care on heart failure outcomes and care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 161 US hospitals and included 5647 patients (2675 intervention vs 2972 usual care) followed up after a hospital discharge for acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The trial was performed from 2017 to 2020, and the date of final follow-up was August 31, 2020. Interventions: Hospitals (n = 82) randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention received regular education of clinicians by a trained group of heart failure and quality improvement experts and audit and feedback on heart failure process measures (eg, use of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF) and outcomes. Hospitals (n = 79) randomized to usual care received access to a generalized heart failure education website. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were a composite of first heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality and change in an opportunity-based composite score for heart failure quality (percentage of recommendations followed). Results: Among 5647 patients (mean age, 63 years; 33% women; 38% Black; 87% chronic heart failure; 49% recent heart failure hospitalization), vital status was known for 5636 (99.8%). Heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 38.6% in the intervention group vs 39.2% in usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05). The baseline quality-of-care score was 42.1% vs 45.5%, respectively, and the change from baseline to follow-up was 2.3% vs -1.0% (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.8% to 7.3%]), with no significant difference between the 2 groups in the odds of achieving a higher composite quality score at last follow-up (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.21]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFrEF in hospitals randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention vs usual care, there was no significant difference in time to first heart failure rehospitalization or death, or in change in a composite heart failure quality-of-care score. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03035474.
Authors: Harriette G C Van Spall; Shun Fu Lee; Feng Xie; Urun Erbas Oz; Richard Perez; Peter R Mitoff; Manish Maingi; Michael C Tjandrawidjaja; Michael Heffernan; Mohammad I Zia; Liane Porepa; Mohamed Panju; Lehana Thabane; Ian D Graham; R Brian Haynes; Dilys Haughton; Kim D Simek; Dennis T Ko; Stuart J Connolly Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-02-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Wiley V Chan; Thomas A Pearson; Glen C Bennett; William C Cushman; Thomas A Gaziano; Paul N Gorman; Joel Handler; Harlan M Krumholz; Robert F Kushner; Thomas D MacKenzie; Ralph L Sacco; Sidney C Smith; Victor J Stevens; Barbara L Wells Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Cynthia Feltner; Christine D Jones; Crystal W Cené; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Carla A Sueta; Emmanuel J L Coker-Schwimmer; Marina Arvanitis; Kathleen N Lohr; Jennifer C Middleton; Daniel E Jonas Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Muthiah Vaduganathan; Gregg C Fonarow; Stephen J Greene; Adam D DeVore; Abhishek Kavati; Slaven Sikirica; Nancy M Albert; Carol I Duffy; C Larry Hill; J Herbert Patterson; John A Spertus; Laine E Thomas; Fredonia B Williams; Adrian F Hernandez; Javed Butler Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Paul A Heidenreich; Adrian F Hernandez; Clyde W Yancy; Li Liang; Eric D Peterson; Gregg C Fonarow Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-01-10
Authors: Ankeet S Bhatt; Anubodh S Varshney; Mahan Nekoui; Alea Moscone; Jonathan W Cunningham; Karola S Jering; Parth N Patel; Lauren E Sinnenberg; Thomas D Bernier; Leo F Buckley; Bryan M Cook; Jillian Dempsey; Julie Kelly; Danielle M Knowles; Kenneth Lupi; Rhynn Malloy; Lina S Matta; Megan N Rhoten; Krishan Sharma; Caroline A Snyder; Clara Ting; Erin E McElrath; Mary G Amato; Maryam Alobaidly; Catherine E Ulbricht; Niteesh K Choudhry; Dale S Adler; Muthiah Vaduganathan Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Karen Joynt Maddox; William K Bleser; Hannah L Crook; Adam J Nelson; Marianne Hamilton Lopez; Robert S Saunders; Mark B McClellan; Nancy Brown Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-05-12
Authors: Larry A Allen; Grace Venechuk; Colleen K McIlvennan; Robert L Page; Christopher E Knoepke; Laura J Helmkamp; Prateeti Khazanie; Pamela N Peterson; Kenneth Pierce; Geoffrey Harger; Jocelyn S Thompson; Tristan J Dow; Lance Richards; Janice Huang; James R Strader; Katy E Trinkley; David P Kao; David J Magid; Peter M Buttrick; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Xiaoxi Yao; Margaret Paulson; Michael J Maniaci; Ajani N Dunn; Chad R Nelson; Emma M Behnken; Melissa S Hart; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Shealeigh A Inselman; Michelle A Lampman; Shannon M Dunlay; Sean C Dowdy; Elizabeth B Habermann Journal: Trials Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 2.728