CIED guided HF management : a prospective cohort study

Abstract

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public hospital(s). Main funding source(s): Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group Background Heart failure (HF) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. (1) Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED) generated Heart Failure Risk Score (HFRS) alerts may guide management in this complex cohort and help direct resources to appropriate patients. (2) Aim To develop and evaluate an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to HF management for patients with CIED by sharing HFRS alerts directly with the HF teams. Methods We undertook a prospective, single centre cohort study of patients who generated high risk HFRS alerts. These alerts were shared with community HF teams responsible for routine care of patient, prompting patient contact and appropriate intervention by the team. Impact of the pathway was evaluated by review of outcomes including hospitalisation and clinical intervention within 4- 6 weeks of the alert and mortality during the follow up period. Ongoing education was provided to help teams deal with alerts. A validated user questionnaire was completed by the stake holders to obtain user feedback. Results 365 "High risk" alerts were noted in 188 patients in a 2 year period (November 2018 - November 2020). The mean number of alerts per patients was 1.9 and 44 (23%) of patients had >3 "high risk" alerts in the follow up period. Having three or more alerts significantly increased the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure (HR 2.5, CI 1.1–5.6 p = 0.03) but not mortality (HR 2.1 CI 0.6-7.2 p = 0.23). Overall 75 (39%) of patients were hospitalised in the 4-6 week period of the alert – 53 (28%) of these were unplanned of which 24(13%) were for decompensated HF. A further 24(13%) had planned admissions for care to improve therapy (AV node ablation, device and lead replacement) and reduce morbidity (LA appendage occlude, IV Iron therapy). 33(18%) of patients died in the follow up period. 15(8%) received therapy from the device. 18(10%) of patient underwent deactivation of ICD therapy. Contact was established in 176 (94%) of patients, and alerts actioned appropriately. 55 patients reported being asymptomatic, and in 45 the trends were improving so no further clinical action was taken. 76 patients had an onward referral made for further management including; 32 to a Cardiologist, 20 to primary care, 13 referrals to community HF teams and 11 referrals to palliative care. 23 patients had medications changes instituted. The feedback on the pathway was positive. Conclusions An integrated approach to HF for patients with CIEDs in situ can facilitate timely risk stratification and intervention in this cohort of patients and potentially reduce unplanned health care utilisation. Intervention in these patients is not limited to HF alone and provides the opportunity for holistic management of this complex cohort Abstract Figure.