Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

BackgroundSelf-management programs for patients with heart failure can reduce hospitalizations and mortality. However, no programs have analyzed their usefulness for patients with low literacy. We compared the efficacy of a heart failure self-management program designed for patients with low literacy versus usual care.MethodsWe performed a 12-month randomized controlled trial. From November 2001 to April 2003, we enrolled participants aged 30–80, who had heart failure and took furosemide. Intervention patients received education on self-care emphasizing daily weight measurement, diuretic dose self-adjustment, and symptom recognition and response. Picture-based educational materials, a digital scale, and scheduled telephone follow-up were provided to reinforce adherence. Control patients received a generic heart failure brochure and usual care. Primary outcomes were combined hospitalization or death, and heart failure-related quality of life.Results123 patients (64 control, 59 intervention) participated; 41% had inadequate literacy. Patients in the intervention group had a lower rate of hospitalization or death (crude incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.69; CI 0.4, 1.2; adjusted IRR = 0.53; CI 0.32, 0.89). This difference was larger for patients with low literacy (IRR = 0.39; CI 0.16, 0.91) than for higher literacy (IRR = 0.56; CI 0.3, 1.04), but the interaction was not statistically significant. At 12 months, more patients in the intervention group reported monitoring weights daily (79% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001). After adjusting for baseline demographic and treatment differences, we found no difference in heart failure-related quality of life at 12 months (difference = -2; CI -5, +9).ConclusionA primary care-based heart failure self-management program designed for patients with low literacy reduces the risk of hospitalizations or death.

Women with heart failure due to nonischemic causes had significantly better survival than men with or without coronary disease as their primary cause of heart failure.

Background Although HF disproportionately affects older adults, little data exist regarding the prevalence of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association heart failure (HF) stages among older individuals in the community. Additionally, the role of contemporary measures of longitudinal strain (LS) and diastolic dysfunction in defining HF stages is unclear. Methods HF stages were classified in 6,118 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (age 67 – 91 years) at the fifth study visit as follows: stage A (asymptomatic with HF risk factors but no cardiac structural or functional abnormalities), B (asymptomatic with structural abnormalities, defined as left ventricular hypertrophy, dilation or dysfunction, or significant valvular disease), C1 (clinical HF without prior hospitalization), and C2 (clinical HF with prior hospitalization). Results Using the traditional definitions of HF stages, only 5% of examined participants were free of HF risk factors or structural heart disease (Stage 0), 52% were categorized as Stage A, 30% Stage B, 7% Stage C1, and 6% Stage C2. Worse HF stage was associated with a greater risk of incident HF hospitalization or death at a median follow-up of 608 days. LVEF was preserved in 77% and 65% in Stages C1 and C2 respectively. Incorporation of LS and diastolic dysfunction into the Stage B definition reclassified 14% of the sample from Stage A to B and improved the net reclassification index (p=0.028) and integrated discrimination index (p=0.016). Abnormal LV structure, systolic function (based on LVEF and LS), and diastolic function (based on e′, E/e′, and left atrial volume index) were each independently and additively associated with risk of incident HF hospitalization or death in Stage A and B participants. Conclusions The majority of older adults in the community are at risk for HF (Stages A or B), appreciably more compared to previous reports in younger community-based samples. LVEF is robustly preserved in at least two-thirds of older adults with prevalent HF (Stage C), highlighting the burden of HFpEF in the elderly. LV diastolic function and LS provide incremental prognostic value beyond conventional measures of LV structure and LVEF in identifying persons at risk for HF hospitalization or death.

No abstract

No abstract

Women with advanced heart failure appear to have better survival than men. Subgroup analysis suggests this finding is strongest among patients with a nonischemic etiology of heart failure.

Background Self-care training can reduce hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and more intensive intervention may benefit more vulnerable patients, including those with low literacy. Methods and Results A 1-year, multisite, randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 605 patients with HF. Those randomized to single session received a 40-minute in-person, literacy-sensitive training; the multisession group received the same initial training and then ongoing telephone-based support. The primary outcome was combined incidence of all-cause hospitalization or death; secondary outcomes included HF-related hospitalization and HF-related quality of life (HFQOL) with pre-specified stratification by literacy. Overall, the incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death did not differ between intervention groups (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.01 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.83, 1.22). The effect of multisession training compared with single session training differed by literacy group: among low literacy, multisession yielded lower incidence of all-cause hospitalization and death: IRR=0.75 (0.45,1.25); and among higher literacy, multisession yielded higher incidence: IRR=1.22 (0.99,1.50) (interaction p=0.048). For HF-related hospitalization: among low literacy, multisession yielded lower incidence: IRR=0.53 (95% CI: 0.25,1.12); and among higher literacy, multisession yielded higher incidence: IRR=1.32 (95% CI: 0.92,1.88) (interaction p=0.005). HFQOL improved more for patients receiving multisession compared with single session at 1 and 6 months, but the difference at 12 months was smaller. Effects on HFQOL did not differ by literacy. Conclusions Overall, an intensive multisession intervention did not change clinical outcomes compared with a single session intervention. People with low literacy appear to benefit more from multisession than people with higher literacy. Clinical Trial Registration Information ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00378950.