Why the study?
To determine whether initial positive findings of improved cardiac recovery from a nurse-led prevention study translated into less de novo HF or all-cause mortality over extended follow-up.
Does nurse-led prevention reduce de novo HF and/or all-cause mortality in cardiac inpatients without HF?
RCT (n=454)
Randomized
No
Does nurse-led prevention reduce de novo HF and/or all-cause mortality in cardiac inpatients without HF?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Positive initial effects of a nurse-led intervention on cardiac recovery in high-risk patients without HF may contribute to better long-term outcomes, though prevention of HF remains challenging.
Aims We extended follow-up of a heart failure (HF) prevention study to determine if initially positive findings of improved cardiac recovery were translated into less de novo HF and/or all-cause mortality (primary endpoint) in the longer term. Methods and results The Nurse-led Intervention for Less Chronic HF (NIL-CHF) study was a single-centre randomized trial of nurse-led prevention involving cardiac inpatients without HF. At 3 years, 454 survivors (aged 66 ± 11 years, 71% men and 68% coronary artery disease) had the following: (i) a normal echocardiogram (128 cases/28.2%), (ii) structural heart disease (196/43.2%), or (iii) left ventricular diastolic dysfunction/left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVDD/LVSD: 130/28.6%). Outcomes were examined during median 8.3 (interquartile range 7.8–8.8) years according to these hierarchal groups and change in cardiac status from baseline to 3 years. Overall, 109 (24.0%) participants had a de novo HF admission or died while accumulating 551 cardiovascular-related admissions/3643 days of hospital stay. Progressively worse cardiac status correlated with increased hospitalizations (P < 0.001). The mean rate (95% confidence interval) of cardiovascular admissions/days of hospital stay being 0.09 (0.05–0.12) admissions/0.33 (0.13–0.54) days vs. 0.27 (0.20–0.34) admissions/2.20 (1.36–3.04) days per annum for those with a normal echocardiogram vs. LVDD/LVSD at 3 years. With progressively higher event rates, the adjusted hazard ratio for a de novo HF admission and/or death associated with a structural abnormality (24.5% of cases) and LVDD/LVSD (36.2%) at 3 years was 1.57 (0.82–3.01; P = 0.173) and 2.07 (1.05–4.05; P = 0.035) compared with a normal echocardiogram (10.9%). Mortality also mirrored the direction/extent of cardiac status/trajectory. Conclusions These data suggest the positive initial effects of NIL-CHF intervention on cardiac recovery contributed to better long-term outcomes among patients at high risk of HF. However, prevention of HF remains challenging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chan et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in High risk of heart failure (n=454). Nurse-led Intervention for Less Chronic HF (NIL-CHF) vs. Usual care / Normal echocardiogram was evaluated on De novo heart failure admission and/or all-cause mortality (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.05-4.05, p=0.035).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: