Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33405392›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2021

Impact of primary care involvement and setting on multidisciplinary heart failure management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Willem Raat, Miek Smeets, Stefan Janssens, Bert Vaes

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Acute Heart Failure Is a Malignant Process: But We Can Induce Remission.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Observational
  15. Variables Determining Higher Home Care Effectiveness in Patients with Chronic Cardiovascular Disease.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Willem RaatDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven (KUL), Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok J Bus 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9591-3974
Miek SmeetsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven (KUL), Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok J Bus 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.
Stefan JanssensDepartment of Cardiovascular Diseases, University Hospitals, KU Leuven (KUL), Leuven, Belgium.
Bert VaesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven (KUL), Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok J Bus 7001, Leuven, 3000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multidisciplinary disease management programmes (DMPs) are a cornerstone of modern guideline-recommended care for heart failure (HF). Few programmes are community initiated or involve primary care professionals, despite the importance of home-based care for HF. We compared the outcomes of different multidisciplinary HF DMPs in relation to their recruitment setting and involvement of primary care health professionals. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane between 2000 and 2020 using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Our meta-analysis included 19 randomized controlled trials (7577 patients), classified according to recruitment setting and involvement of primary care professionals. Thirteen studies recruited in the hospital (n = 5243 patients) and six in the community (n = 2334 patients). Only six studies involved primary care professionals (n = 3427 patients), with two of these recruited in the community (n = 225 patients). Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruited in the community had no significant effect on all-cause and HF readmissions nor on mortality, irrespective of primary care involvement. Studies that recruited in the hospital demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (relative risk 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.76, 0.98]), HF readmissions (0.70, 95% CI [0.54, 0.89]), and all-cause readmissions (0.72, 95% CI [0.60, 0.87]). However, the difference in effect size between recruitment setting and involvement of primary care was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Multidisciplinary HF DMPs that recruit in the community have no significant effect on mortality or hospital readmissions, unlike DMPs that recruit in the hospital, although the difference in effect size was not significant in a meta-regression analysis. Only six multidisciplinary studies involved primary care professionals. Given demographic evolutions and the importance of integrated home-based care for patients with HF, future multidisciplinary HF DMPs should consider integrating primary care professionals and evaluating the effectiveness of this model.

Indexed as

Heart FailureHome Care ServicesHumansPatient ReadmissionPrimary Health Carecare settingcommunity caredisease managementheart failuremultidisciplinaryprimary caretransitional care

Identifiers

PMID33405392
PMCPMC8006678

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.