Why the study?
A lack of standardized definitions for heart failure outcome measures limits the ability to reliably assess the effectiveness of heart failure therapies.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Consensus process with systematic review and modified Delphi method
Adopts standardized HF outcome measures into routine care; extends EuroHeart framework for comparable international research and benchmarking.
AIMS: The lack of standardized definitions for heart failure outcome measures limits the ability to reliably assess the effectiveness of heart failure therapies. The European Unified Registries for Heart Care Evaluation and Randomised Trials (EuroHeart) aimed to produce a catalogue of internationally endorsed data definitions for heart failure outcome measures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Following the EuroHeart methods for the development of cardiovascular data standards, a working group was formed of representatives from the European Society of Cardiology Heart Failure Association and other leading heart failure experts. A systematic review of observational and randomized clinical trials identified current outcome measures, which was supplemented by clinical practice guidelines and existing registries for contemporary definitions. A modified Delphi process was employed to gain consensus for variable inclusion and whether collection should be mandatory (Level 1) or optional (Level 2) within EuroHeart. In addition, a set of complementary outcome measures were identified by the working group as of scientific and clinical importance for longitudinal monitoring for people with heart failure. Five Level 1 and two Level 2 outcome measures were selected and defined, alongside five complementary monitoring outcomes for patients with heart failure. CONCLUSION: We present a structured, hierarchical catalogue of internationally endorsed heart failure outcome measures. This will facilitate quality improvement, high quality observational research, registry-based trials, and post-market surveillance of medical devices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhatty et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: