No abstract

No abstract

*The 2012 writing group members were required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply; see Appendix 4 for recusal information.

Objective The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness of a combined 12-week home-based exercise (EX)/cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program (n=18) with CBT alone (n=19), EX alone (n=20), and with usual care (UC, n=17) in stable New York Heart Association Class II to III heart failure (HF) patients diagnosed with depression. Methods Depressive symptom severity [Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D)], physical function [6-min walk test (6MWT)], and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire) were evaluated at baseline (T1), after the 12-week intervention/control (T2), and following a 3-month telephone follow-up (T3). A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine group differences. Depression severity was dichotomized as minor (HAM-D, 11–14) and moderate-to-major depression (HAM-D, ≥15), and group intervention and control responses were also evaluated on that basis. Results The greatest reduction in HAM-D scores over time occurred in the EX/CBT group (−10.4) followed by CBT (−9.6), EX (−7.3), and UC (−6.2), but none were statistically significant. The combined group showed a significant increase in 6-min walk distance at 24 weeks (F=13.5, P<.001). Among all groups with moderate-to-major depression, only those in CBT/EX had sustained lower HAM-D scores at 12 and 24 weeks, 6MWT distances were significantly greater at 12 (P=.018) and 24 (P=.013) weeks, and the greatest improvement in HRQOL also occurred. Conclusions Interventions designed to improve both physical and psychological symptoms may provide the best method for optimizing functioning and enhancing HRQOL in patients with HF.

Many patient education guidelines for teaching heart failure patients recommend inclusion of the family; however, family-focused interventions to promote self-care in heart failure are few. This article reviews the state of the science regarding family influences on heart failure self-care and outcomes. The literature and current studies suggest that family functioning, family support, problem solving, communication, self-efficacy, and caregiver burden are important areas to target for future research. In addition, heart failure patients without family and those who live alone and are socially isolated are highly vulnerable for poor self-care and should receive focused attention. Specific research questions based on existing science and gaps that need to be filled to support clinical practice are posed.Keywords caregiver outcomes; family functioning; family support; heart failure; patient education; self-care; self-management Efforts to bolster self-care in heart failure (HF) patients are paramount to improving behaviors related to diet and medication adherence, reducing hospitalization, and enhancing overall outcomes. Self-care in HF is quite variable, and new approaches are needed to promote preventable hospitalizations, reduce symptoms, and improve quality of life. Published clinical practice guidelines suggest that both patients with HF and their family members or care-givers should receive individualized education and counseling that emphasizes self-care 1 ; however, the data to guide family education and care in HF are sparse. This review will examine the literature related to HF self-care and family concepts including descriptive research on family variables and behaviors, the relationship of family variables to outcomes, and family intervention studies. Finally, recommendations for HF practice and future research will be presented. Copyright NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptThe concept of family is highly relevant to self-care, and a recent framework published by Grey and colleagues 2 outlines the relationships among family factors, individual, and family selfmanagement of chronic illness. Using a structure, process, and out-comes framework, the model identifies family structural variables as risk and protective factors that influence individual and family self-care and self-management behaviors as part of health promotion or chronic disease care. These behaviors, such as healthy eating or medication-taking activities, then lead to clinical outcomes. Family functioning (which has dimensions of adaptability, problem solving, and communication and roles) in this model also is viewed as an outcome of self-management; however, in other chronic illness populations, family functioning is often understood as a precursor to effective self-care. Regardless of where it is placed in models, when family functioning is not optimal, managing a complex self-care regimen, such as that prescribed for HF patients, will not be as effective as it could be. Better family fun...

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINESfailed to show a significant reduction of SBP in patients with resistant hypertension. 81 Other strategies such as targeting excessive sympathetic nerve activity by carotid body denervation are awaiting clinical validation in the hypertension and HF populations. Drugs to Avoid in Patients With HFSeveral classes of drugs should be avoided in patients with HFrEF with a history of hypertension. Because of their negative inotropic properties and the increased likelihood of worsening HF symptoms, the nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers such as diltiazem and verapamil should be avoided. 8 The dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine appeared to be safe in patients with severe HFrEF in the PRAISE trial (Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation), 82 as was felodipine. 73 In the current 2013 HF guidelines, most calcium channelblocking drugs except amlodipine are not recommended. 8Although clonidine is an effective antihypertensive agent, a similar centrally acting drug, moxonidine, was associated with increased mortality in patients with HF; thus, centrally acting norepinephrine-depleting agents may need to be avoided or used with caution in patients with HFrEF. 83In the ALLHAT trial, the α-blocker doxazosin arm of the trial was discontinued because of a 2-fold increase in the risk of developing HF compared with chlorthalidone treatment. 45 Although the ALLHAT study excluded patients with established HF and there are caveats about extrapolating these data to the management of hypertension in patients with established HF, the safety and efficacy of α-blockers in the management of patients with HF with hypertension are currently unclear. Potent direct-acting vasodilators such as minoxidil should also be avoided because of their renin-related salt and fluid-retaining effects. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents should be used with caution in these patients, given their effects on BP, volume status, and renal function. Treatment of Hypertension in Patients With HF With Preserved LVEFMost patients with HF and preserved LVEF (HFpEF), especially elderly women, have hypertension. A significant proportion of these patients also have evidence of LV hypertrophy, and some may have atrial dilatation, cardiac enlargement, and wall motion abnormalities without LV systolic dysfunction. Patients with HFpEF may respond particularly well to the treatment of hypertension with regression of hypertrophy 84 and improvement in filling pressures. 84,85 Most patients with HFpEF require treatment with cardiac medications for the comorbidities of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. The 2013 HF guidelines suggest that the use of β-blocking agents, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs in patients with hypertension is reasonable to control BP in patients with HFpEF. 8 The use of ARBs might also be considered to decrease hospitalizations for patients with HFpEF. recommendations Harmonized With Existing Guidelines for the recognition and Treatment of pa...

No abstract

Self‐care is defined as a naturalistic decision‐making process addressing both the prevention and management of chronic illness, with core elements of self‐care maintenance, self‐care monitoring, and self‐care management. In this scientific statement, we describe the importance of self‐care in the American Heart Association mission and vision of building healthier lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and stroke. The evidence supporting specific self‐care behaviors such as diet and exercise, barriers to self‐care, and the effectiveness of self‐care in improving outcomes is reviewed, as is the evidence supporting various individual, family‐based, and community‐based approaches to improving self‐care. Although there are many nuances to the relationships between self‐care and outcomes, there is strong evidence that self‐care is effective in achieving the goals of the treatment plan and cannot be ignored. As such, greater emphasis should be placed on self‐care in evidence‐based guidelines.