Background The efficacy of telemedicine in the management of patients with chronic heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40% is poorly understood. The aim of our analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of a telemedicine-based intervention specifically in these patients, as compared to standard of care alone. Methods The Insuficiència Cardiaca Optimització Remota (iCOR) study was a single centre, randomised, controlled trial, designed to evaluate a telemedicine intervention added to an existing hospital/primary care multidisciplinary, integrated programme for chronic heart failure patients. 178 participants were randomised to telemedicine or usual care, and were followed for six months. For the present sub-analysis, only iCOR participants (n = 116) with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40% were included. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of an acute non-fatal heart failure event, defined as a new episode of worsening of symptoms and signs consistent with acute heart failure requiring intravenous diuretic therapy. The healthcare-related costs in each study group were also evaluated. Results The incidence of the first occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the telemedicine arm (22% vs 56%, p<0.001), with a hazard ratio of 0.33 comparing to the usual care arm (95% confidence interval 0.17-0.64). Telemedicine was also associated with lower mean overall chronic heart failure care-related costs compared to usual care (8163€ vs 4993€, p=0.001). The results were consistent in both left ventricular ejection fraction of 40-49% and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% patients. Conclusions Our results suggest that telemedicine is a promising strategy for the management of chronic heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. These findings should be replicated in larger cohorts.

Aims The assumption that improved self-care in the setting of heart failure (HF) care necessarily translates into improvements in long-term mortality and/or hospitalization is not well established. We aimed to study the association between self-care and long-term mortality and other major adverse HF events (MAHFE). Methods and results We conducted an observational, prospective, cohort study of 1123 consecutive patients with chronic HF. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. We used the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale 9-item version (EHFSCBS-9) to measure global self-care (overall score) and three specific dimensions of self-care including autonomy-based adherence, consulting behaviour and provider-based adherence. After a mean follow-up of 3.3 years, all-cause death occurred in 487 patients (43%). In adjusted analysis, higher EHFScBS-9 scores (better self-care) at baseline were associated with lower risk of all-cause death [hazard ratio (HR) 0.993, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.988–0.997), P-value = 0.002], cardiovascular (CV) death [HR 0.989, 95% CI (0.981–0.996), P-value = 0.003], HF hospitalization [HR 0.993, 95% CI (0.988–0.998), P-value = 0.005], and the combination of MAHFE [HR 0.995, 95% CI (0.991–0.999), P-value = 0.018]. Similarly, impaired global self-care [HR 1.589, 95% CI (1.201–2.127), P-value = 0.001], impaired autonomy-based adherence [HR 1.464, 95% CI (1.114–1.923), P-value = 0.006], and impaired consulting behaviour dimensions [HR 1.510, 95% CI (1.140–1.923), P-value = 0.006] were all associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality. Conclusion In this study, we have shown that worse self-care is an independent predictor of long-term mortality (both, all-cause and CV), HF hospitalization, and the combinations of these endpoints in patients with chronic HF. Important dimensions of self-care such as autonomy-based adherence and consulting behaviour also determine the risk of all these outcomes in the long term.

BackgroundPatient empowerment is a key factor in improving health outcomes. ObjectiveTo evaluate the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the questionnaire on Patient Empowerment in Long-Term Conditions (PELC) that evaluates the degree of empowerment of patients with chronic diseases. MethodsThree measurements were made (at baseline, 2 weeks and 12 weeks) of quality of life (QoL), self-care, self-efficacy and empowerment. Reliability was evaluated as internal consistency for the entire sample. Test-retest reproducibility was evaluated for patients who were stable from baseline to week 2 (n = 70). Validity was analysed (n = 124) as baseline correlations with QoL, self-care, self-efficacy, clinical data and psychosocial variables. Sensitivity to change was analysed in terms of effect size for patients who had improved between baseline and week 12 (n = 48).

ObjectivesTo gather insights on the disease experience of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and assess how patients’ experiences and narratives related to the disease complement data collected through standardised patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Also, to explore new ways of evaluating the burden experienced by patients and caregivers.DesignObservational, descriptive, multicentre, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study.SettingSecondary care, patient’s homes.ParticipantsTwenty patients with HFrEF (New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification I–III) aged 38–85 years.MeasuresPROMs EuroQoL 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and patient interview and observation.ResultsA total of 20 patients with HFrEF participated in the study. The patients’ mean (SD) age was 72.5 (11.4) years, 65% were male and were classified inNYHA functional classes I (n=4), II (n=7) and III (n=9). The study showed a strong impact of HF in the patients’ quality of life (QoL) and disease experience, as revealed by the standardised PROMs (EQ-5D-5L global index=0.64 (0.36); Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score=71.56 (20.55)) and the in-depth interviews. Patients and caregivers often disagreed describing and evaluating perceived QoL, as patients downplayed their limitations and caregivers overemphasised the poor QoL of the patients. Patients related current QoL to distant life experiences or to critical moments in their disease, such as hospitalisations. Anxiety over the disease progression is apparent in both patients and caregivers, suggesting that caregiver-specific tools should be developed.ConclusionsPROMs are an effective way of assessing symptoms over the most recent time period. However, especially in chronic diseases such as HFrEF, PROM scores could be complemented with additional tools to gain a better understanding of the patient’s status. New PROMs designed to evaluate and compare specific points in the life of the patient could be clinically more useful to assess changes in health status.