152 Does outpatient based IV diuretic treatment for acute heart failure give patients hope?. (4th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wong, Kenneth; Hughes, D.A.; Debski, Maciej; Latt, Nang; Assaf, Omar; Abdelrahman, Amr; Taylor, Rebecca; Allgar, Victoria; McNeill, Loie; Howard, Stuart; Wong, Suzanne; Jones, Robert; Cassidy, C.J.; Seed, Alison; Galasko, Gavin; Clark, Andrew; Wilson, David; Davis, G; Montasem, Alexander; Lang, CC; Kalra, Paul; Campbell, R.; Lip, G.; Cleland, John
• Is Part Of: Heart. Volume 107(2021)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A116
• Page End: A117
• Publication Date: 2021-06-04
• Subjects: Acute Heart Failure -- Mental Wellbeing and Hope -- Outpatient Based IV diuretic treatment; Heart -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-BCS.149
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1355-6037

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Acute heart failure (AHF) hospitalisation is typically lengthy, costly and associated with 10% mortality. Outpatient based management (OPM) of AHF appeared effective in observational studies. We conducted a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing OPM with standard inpatient care (IPM). Hopelessness independently predicted mortality in patients with risk factors of ischaemic heart disease. We hypothesize that patients randomised to OPM may be more hopeful and have better mental well-being, with better quality of life, patient and carer satisfaction. Methods: We randomised patients with AHF, considered to need IV diuretic treatment for >2 days, to IPM or OPM. We recorded all-cause mortality (index-episode), and the number of full days alive and out-of-hospital (DAOH) within 60 days after randomisation. Quality of life (EQ5D-VAS), mental well-being [Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale] and hope (Adult State Hope Scale) scores which have been validated as accurate in detecting fluctuations in hope were assessed up to 60 days follow-up. We calculated mean NHS cost savings and 95% central range (CR) from bootstrap analysis. Results: Eleven patients were randomised to IPM and thirteen to OPM. There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality during the index episode (1/11 vs 0/13) and up to 60 days follow-up (2/11 vs 2/13) [log rank p=0.86]. ( Figure 1 ) . Patients randomised to IPM accrued a median of 47 [IQR 36, 51] vs 59 [41, 60] DAOH in OPM (p=0.13). 2 patients randomised to IPM (vs 6 OPM) were readmitted within 60 days [p=0.31]. Hope scores increased more with OPM within 30 days after randomisation but by 60 days, dropped to lower levels compared with the group allocated to IPM (not statistically significant). (Table 1) . In-patients' mental well-being score was higher at baseline but more out-patients had increased total well-being scores by the 60-day follow-up visit (p=0.04). (Table 2) . 100% patients in both arms were satisfied according to the 'NHS Family and Friends Test' but interestingly 100% would choose OPM again whilst only 90% would choose Inpatient care again. Similarly, 100% carers were satisfied in the OPM arm whilst 60% only were satisfied if the patient was randomised to inpatient care. 100% carers would choose OPM again, vs 60% IPM carers.OPM was associated with mean cost savings of £2, 658 (95% CR 460 - 4, 857) per patient during the index episode. Conclusions: Patients with acute HF randomised to OPM accrued more DAOH (albeit not statistically significant in this small pilot RCT). There was no increase in mortality but there was a higher risk of readmissions (not statistically significant). OPM was associated with improved mental well-being. But the initial increase in hope diminished within 60 days, possibly as a result of increased readmissions. The pilot RCT generated important hypotheses that need further testing in a large multicentre RCT. Conflict of Interest: none