Search

Aims: This study aimed to assess the sex‐specific distribution of heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid‐range, and reduced ejection fraction across three health care settings. Methods and results: In this descriptive observational study, we retrieved the distribution of HF types [with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)] for men and women between 65 and 79 years of age in three health care settings from a single country: (i) patients with screening‐detected HF in the high‐risk community (i.e. those with shortness of breath, frailty, diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) from four screening studies, (ii) patients with confirmed HF from primary care derived from a single observational study, and (iii) patients with confirmed HF from outpatient cardiology clinics participating in a registry. Among 1407 patients from the high‐risk community, 288 had screen‐detected HF (15% HFrEF, 12% HFmrEF, 74% HFpEF), and 51% of the screen‐detected HF patients were women. In both women (82%) and men (65%), HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type. In the routine general practice population (30 practices, 70 000 individuals), among the 160 confirmed HF cases, 35% had HFrEF, 23% HFmrEF, and 43% HFpEF, and in total, 43% were women. In women, HFpEF was the most prevalent HF type (52%), while in men, this was HFrEF (41%). In outpatient cardiology clinics (n = 34), of the 4742 HF patients (66% HFrEF, 15% HFmrEF, 20% HFpEF), 36% were women. In both women (56%) and men (71%), HFrEF was the most prevalent HF type. Conclusions: Both HF types and sex distribution vary considerably in HF patients of 65–79 years of age among health care settings. From the high‐risk community through to general practice to the cardiology outpatient setting, there is a shift in HF type from HFpEF to HFrEF and a decrease in the proportion of HF patients that are women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Exercise reduced tolerance and breathlessness are common in the elderly and can result in substantial loss in functionality and health related quality of life. Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are common underlying causes, but can be difficult to disentangle due to overlap in symptomatology. In addition, other potential causes such as obesity, anaemia, renal dysfunction and thyroid disorders may be involved. We aim to assess whether screening of frail elderly with reduced exercise tolerance leads to high detection rates of HF, COPD, or alternative diagnoses, and whether detection of these diseases would result in changes in patient management and increase in both functionality and quality of life. Methods/Design A cluster randomized diagnostic trial. Primary care practices are randomized to the diagnostic-treatment strategy (screening) or care as usual. Patient population: Frail (defined as having three or more chronic or vitality threatening diseases and/or receiving five or more drugs chronically during the last year) community-dwelling persons aged 65 years and older selected from the electronic medical files of the participating general practitioners. Those with reduced exercise tolerance or moderate to severe dyspnoea (≥2 score on the Medical Research Counsel dyspnoea scale) are included in the study. The diagnostic screening in the intervention group includes history taking, physical examination, electrocardiography, spirometry, blood tests, and echocardiography. Subsequently, participants with new diagnoses will be managed according to clinical guidelines. Participants in the control arm receive care as usual. All participants fill out health status and other relevant questionnaires at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up. Discussion This study will generate information on the yield of screening for previously unrecognized HF, COPD and other chronic diseases in frail elderly with reduced exercise tolerance and/or exercise induced dyspnoea. The cluster randomized comparison will reveal whether this yield will result in subsequent improvements in functional health and/or health related quality of life. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01148719

Background: In diagnostic studies, a single and error-free test that can be used as the reference (gold) standard often does not exist. One solution is the use of panel diagnosis, i.e., a group of experts who assess the results from multiple tests to reach a final diagnosis in each patient. Although panel diagnosis, also known as consensus or expert diagnosis, is frequently used as the reference standard, guidance on preferred methodology is lacking. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of methods used in panel diagnoses and to provide initial guidance on the use and reporting of panel diagnosis as reference standard. Methods and Findings: PubMed was systematically searched for diagnostic studies applying a panel diagnosis as reference standard published up to May 31, 2012. We included diagnostic studies in which the final diagnosis was made by two or more persons based on results from multiple tests. General study characteristics and details of panel methodology were extracted. Eighty-one studies were included, of which most reported on psychiatry (37%) and cardiovascular (21%) diseases. Data extraction was hampered by incomplete reporting; one or more pieces of critical information about panel reference standard methodology was missing in 83% of studies. In most studies (75%), the panel consisted of three or fewer members. Panel members were blinded to the results of the index test results in 31% of studies. Reproducibility of the decision process was assessed in 17 (21%) studies. Reported details on panel constitution, information for diagnosis and methods of decision making varied considerably between studies. Conclusions: Methods of panel diagnosis varied substantially across studies and many aspects of the procedure were either unclear or not reported. On the basis of our review, we identified areas for improvement and developed a checklist and flow chart for initial guidance for researchers conducting and reporting of studies involving panel diagnosis. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction Different types of diagnostic studies, e.g., studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of a single test or developing a multivariable diagnostic model, all face the key challenge of obtaining the [...]

Background: Heart failure (HF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often remain undiagnosed in older individuals, although both disorders inhibit functionality and impair health. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of a case-finding strategy of these disorders.Methods: This is a clustered randomized trial; 18 general practices from the vicinity of Utrecht, the Netherlands, were randomly allocated to a case-finding strategy or usual care. Multimorbid community subjects (≥65 years) with dyspnea or reduced exercise tolerance were eligible for inclusion. The case-finding strategy consisted of history taking, physical examination, blood tests, electrocardiography, spirometry, and echocardiography. Subsequent treatment decisions were at the discretion of the general practitioner. Questionnaires regarding health status and functionality were filled out at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up. Information regarding changes in medication and health care use during the 6 months follow-up was extracted.Results: A total of 829 participants were randomized: 389 in the case-finding strategy group and 440 in the usual care group. More patients in the case-finding group received a new diagnosis of HF or COPD than the usual care group (cumulative incidence 34% vs 2% and 17% vs. 2%, respectively). Scores for health status, functionality, and health care use were similar between the 2 strategies after 6 months of follow-up.Conclusions: A case-finding strategy applied in primary care to multimorbid older people with dyspnea or reduced exercise tolerance resulted in a number of new diagnoses of HF and COPD but did not result in short-term improvement of health status compared to usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of undetected left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is high, especially in the elderly with comorbidities. Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is a prognostic indicator of heart failure, in particularly of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and of future cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Therefore we aimed to develop sex-specific diagnostic models to enable the early identification of men and women at high-risk of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction with or without symptoms of heart failure who require more aggressive preventative strategies., Design: Individual patient data from four primary care heart failure-screening studies were analysed (1371 participants, excluding patients classified as heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction <50%)., Methods: Eleven candidate predictors were entered into logistic regression models to be associated with the presence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in men and women separately. Internal-external cross-validation was performed to develop and validate the models., Results: Increased age and β-blocker therapy remained as predictors in both the models for men and women. The model for men additionally consisted of increased body mass index, moderate to severe shortness of breath, increased pulse pressure and history of ischaemic heart disease. The models performed moderately and similarly well in men (c-statistics range 0.60-0.75) and women (c-statistics range 0.51-0.76) and the performance improved significantly following the addition of N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide (c-statistics range 0.61-0.80 in women and 0.68-0.80 in men)., Conclusions: We provide an easy-to-use screening tool for use in the community, which can improve the early detection of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction/heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in high-risk men and women and optimise tailoring of preventive interventions.