Search

Introduction: To alleviate the burden of Heart Failure (HF), the European Society of cardiology developed guidelines (ESC-guidelines) to optimise HF-diagnosis and treatment. These guidelines state that optimal HF-care is organised in a multidisciplinary programme in which pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment is offered. Research has proven that multidisciplinary programmes and effective self-care behaviour significantly reduce HF-mortality and (re)hospitalisation, yet little is known about implementation of these ESC-guidelines. Therefore, the INTERACT study investigated current HF-care processes and guideline adherence in three North-West European regions: Maastricht (the Netherlands), Aachen (Germany) and Noorder-Kempen (Belgium). Methods: A case-study approach was adopted to study local implementation of ESC-guidelines considering non-pharmacological- and multidisciplinary care. National guidelines and local protocols were collected and studied to investigate the level of agreement with and implementation of ESC-guidelines. A matrix was developed to analyse the content of national and local guidelines and protocols in terms of non-pharmacological and multidisciplinary care. Results: All national organisations promote ESC guidelines, and some developed additional national guidelines. In region A, B and C patients receive multidisciplinary care in hospital based HF-outpatient clinics. Moreover, region B and C patients benefit from either structural (region B) or project based (region C) integrated care, in which specialist- and primary care work together to provide seamless care for HF-patients. However, in region A this seamless integrated care remains to be implemented. Conclusion: Although ESC-guidelines recommend clearly considering Multidisciplinary- and non-pharmacological care implementation may differ between regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is challenging. The newly proposed HFA-PEFF algorithm entails a stepwise approach. Step 1, typically performed in the ambulatory setting, establishes a pre-test likelihood. The second step calculates a score based on echocardiography and natriuretic peptides. The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic value and establish the clinical impact of the second step of the HFA-PEFF score.Methods and Results: The second step of the HFA-PEFF score was evaluated in two independent, prospective cohorts, i.e. the Maastricht cohort (228 HFpEF patients and 42 controls) and the Northwestern Chicago cohort (459 HFpEF patients). In Maastricht, the HFA-PEFF score categorizes 11 (4%) of the total cohort with suspected HFpEF in the low-likelihood (0-1 points) and 161 (60%) in the high-likelihood category (5-6 points). A high HFA-PEFF score can rule in HFpEF with high specificity (93%) and positive predictive value (98%). A low score can rule out HFpEF with a sensitivity of 99% and a negative predictive value of 73%. The diagnostic accuracy of the score is 0.90 (0.84-0.96), by the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve. However, 98 (36%) are classified in the intermediate-likelihood category, where additional testing is advised. The distribution of the score shows a similar pattern in the Northwestern (Chicago) and Maastricht HFpEF patients (53% vs. 65% high, 43% vs. 34% intermediate, 4.8% vs. 1.3% low).Conclusion: This study validates and characterizes the HFA-PEFF score in two independent, well phenotyped cohorts. We demonstrate that the HFA-PEFF score is helpful in clinical practice for the diagnosis of HFpEF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]