Background Self-management interventions are widely implemented in care for patients with heart failure (HF). Trials however show inconsistent results and whether specific patient groups respond differently is unknown. This individual patient data meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of self-management interventions in HF patients and whether subgroups of patients respond differently. Methods and Results Systematic literature search identified randomized trials of self-management interventions. Data of twenty studies, representing 5624 patients, were included and analyzed using mixed effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models including interaction terms. Self-management interventions reduced risk of time to the combined endpoint HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.89), time to HF-related hospitalization (HR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.69–0.92), and improved 12-month HF-related quality of life (standardized mean difference 0.15; 95%CI, 0.00–0.30). Subgroup analysis revealed a protective effect of self-management on number of HF-related hospital days in patients <65 years (mean number of days 0.70 days vs. 5.35 days; interaction p=0.03). Patients without depression did not show an effect of self-management on survival (HR for all-cause mortality, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.69–1.06), while in patients with moderate/severe depression self-management reduced survival (HR, 1.39; 95%CI, 1.06–1.83, interaction p=0.01). Conclusions This study shows that self-management interventions had a beneficial effect on time to HF-related hospitalization or all-cause death, HF-related hospitalization alone, and elicited a small increase in HF-related quality of life. The findings do not endorse limiting self-management interventions to subgroups of HF patients, but increased mortality in depressed patients warrants caution in applying self-management strategies in these patients.

Background To identify those characteristics of self-management interventions in patients with heart failure (HF) that are effective in influencing health-related quality of life, mortality, and hospitalizations. Methods and Results Randomized trials on self-management interventions conducted between January 1985 and June 2013 were identified and individual patient data were requested for meta-analysis. Generalized mixed effects models and Cox proportional-hazard models including frailty terms were used to assess the relation between characteristics of interventions and health-related outcomes. Twenty randomized trials (5624 patients) were included. Longer intervention duration reduced mortality risk (hazard ratio 0.99, 95%CI 0.97–0.999 per month increase in duration), risk of HF-related hospitalization (hazard ratio 0.98, 95%CI 0.96–0.99), and HF-related hospitalization at 6 months (risk ratio 0.96, 95%CI 0.92–0.995). Although results were not consistent across outcomes, interventions comprising standardized training of interventionists, peer contact, log keeping, or goal-setting skills appeared less effective than interventions without these characteristics. Conclusion No specific program characteristics were consistently associated with better effects of self-management interventions, but longer duration seemed to improve the effect of self-management interventions on several outcomes. Future research using factorial trial designs and process evaluations is needed to understand the working mechanism of specific program characteristics of self-management interventions in HF patients.

Aim: To determine whether an intensive intervention at a heart failure (HF) clinic by a combination of a clinician and a cardiovascular nurse, both trained in HF, reduces the incidence of hospitalisation for worsening HF and/or all-cause mortality (primary end point) and improves functional status (including left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and quality of life) in patients with NYHA class III or IV. Setting: Two regional teaching hospitals in The Netherlands. Methods: 240 patients were randomly allocated to the 1-year intervention (n = 118) or usual care (n = 122). The intervention consisted of 9 scheduled patient contacts-at day 3 by telephone, and at weeks 1, 3, 5, 7 and at months 3, 6, 9 and 12 by a visit-to a combined, intensive physician-and-nurse-directed HF outpatient clinic, starting within a week after hospital discharge from the hospital or referral from the outpatient clinic. Verbal and written comprehensive education, optimisation of treatment, easy access to the clinic, recommendations for exercise and rest, and advice for symptom monitoring and self-care were provided. Usual care included outpatient visits initialised by individual cardiologists in the cardiology departments involved and applying the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Results: During the 12-month study period, the number of admissions for worsening HF and/or all-cause deaths in the intervention group was lower than in the control group (23 vs 47; relative risk (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.81; p = 0.001). There was an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the intervention group (plus 2.6%) compared with the usual care group (minus 3.1%; p = 0.004). Patients in the intervention group were hospitalised for a total of 359 days compared with 644 days for those in the usual care group. Beneficial effects were also observed on NYHA classification, prescription of spironolactone, maximally reached dose of b-blockers, quality of life, self-care behaviour and healthcare costs. Conclusion: A heart failure clinic involving an intensive intervention by both a clinician and a cardiovascular nurse substantially reduces hospitalisations for worsening HF and/or all-cause mortality and improves functional status, while decreasing healthcare costs, even in a country with a primary-care-based healthcare system. D espite survival benefit due to new medical strategies, the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF) remains poor. Studies consistently show 5-year survival rates between 35% and 60%.

Background: Several randomised studies of heart failure (HF) management programmes in the United States, Australia and Europe have shown a considerable reduction in hospitalisation rates for HF. In this article, a comprehensive review of these studies will be provided and their applicability to countries, with a primary care-based healthcare system, will be discussed. In addition, the design of the DeventerAlkmaar HF Project (DEAL-HF), a randomised study of the effect of a nurse and physician-directed intervention over 1 year in The Netherlands, will also be presented. Aim: To discuss the applicability of the results of available studies on heart failure management programmes to countries with well-structured primary care facilities and to determine whether additional trials should be conducted in these countries. Methods: We performed a literature search in PubMed. In a review of the available studies, essential methodological aspects, in particular, the population involved, the sample size, follow-up period, setting, type of intervention, and the outcome parameters, are discussed critically. Also, the applicability of these studies to countries with a primary care-based healthcare system and easy access to medical care is evaluated. Conclusion: Applicability of the results of the available studies on the efficacy of heart failure management programmes to countries with a primary care-based health care system is doubtful. An efficacy trial in a country with a well-established primary care-based healthcare system, such as The Netherlands, is due to report soon (DEAL-HF).