Patients with heart failure have comparable illness burden and palliative care needs to those with cancer. However, few of them are offered timely palliative care. One main barrier is the difficulty in identifying those who require palliative care. Several palliative care needs-assessment/measurement tools were used to help identify these patients and assess/measure their needs, but it is not known which one is the most appropriate for this population. This review aimed to identify the most appropriate palliative care needs-assessment/measurement tools for patients with heart failure. Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Complete, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, EMBASE, EThOS, websites of the identified tools, and references and citations of the included studies were searched from inception to 25 June 2020. Studies were included if they evaluated palliative care needs-assessment/ measurement tools for heart failure populations in terms of development, psychometrics, or palliative care patient/needs identification. Twenty-seven papers were included regarding nineteen studies, most of which were quantitative and observational. Six tools were identified and compared according to their content and context of use, development, psychometrics, and clinical applications in identifying patients with palliative care needs. Despite limited evidence, the Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure (NAT:PD-HF) is the most appropriate palliative care needs-assessment tool for use in heart failure populations. It covers most of the patient needs and has the best psychometric properties and evidence of identification ability and appropriateness. Psychometric testing of the tools in patients with heart failure and evaluating the tools to identify those with palliative care needs require more investigation.

No abstract

BackgroundRefractory angina can have a significant effect on quality of life. Non-invasive interventions have been suggested but there are few guidelines on management. Our aim was to systematically review all studies that reported non-invasive interventions for refractory angina and report on their effectiveness and safety.MethodsWe performed a literature search of six databases and a grey literature search. Treatments considered first line or second line according to the European Society of Cardiology were excluded, as were interventions that had undergone review within the last 3 years. Design, setting and outcomes were extracted and quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, including an analysis of adverse effects.Results4476 studies were screened, 14 studies were included in our analysis. Interventions were specialist multidisciplinary programmes, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), perhexiline, medical optimisation, morphine and intranasal alfentanil. The effects of specialist programmes and perhexiline treatment were mixed. Positive effects were reported with TENS, opioids and medical optimisation, with improvements in symptoms, exercise capacity and quality of life. No major adverse effects were noted in any of the treatments.ConclusionThere are non-invasive treatments for refractory angina that are overlooked by current guidelines. While the quality of these studies varies, positive changes have been reported in symptoms, exercise tolerance and quality of life with few adverse effects. There is a need for further research into these treatments which could be useful within the contexts of cardiology and palliative care.

No abstract