Outcomes of early post-discharge cardio-geriatric care in frail patients after acute heart failure: A before-and-after study

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5275970/v1

Background

Despite significant advancements in heart failure (HF) management, older adults continue to face poor clinical outcomes. While an integrated, multidisciplinary approach that combines cardiology and geriatric expertise has shown considerable promise, its adoption in practice remains limited. This study aimed to assess whether an early post-discharge Cardio-Geriatric (CG) outpatient service could reduce 1-year mortality compared to usual care (UC), as well as evaluate its impact on 1-year rehospitalization rates and days alive and out of hospital (DAOH).

Methods

In this single-center, controlled before-and-after study, patients aged ≥ 75 years hospitalized for acute HF were included. In the UC group, patients discharged between January 2018 and December 2019 received standard follow-up with referrals to a cardiologist and general practitioner. In the CG group, patients discharged between January 2020 and December 2022 attended CG ambulatory care within three weeks of discharge. Primary outcomes were one-year all-cause mortality, HF readmissions, and DOAH. The effectiveness of CG follow-up was assessed using a 1:1 propensity score matched (PSM) analysis.

Results

A total of 652 patients (mean age 86 years, 56% female) were included in the study, with 477 receiving UC and 175 referred to CG follow-up. After PSM of 350 patients (50% CG), we observed a significant reduction in 1-year rehospitalizations (36.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.001) and mortality (20.0% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.001) in the CG group. CG patients also had nearly double the days alive and out of hospital (DAOH) compared to UC patients (300 ± 100 vs. 162 ± 145 days, p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis confirmed that the CG integrated approach was a protective factor for mortality [HR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.24–0.47]. Respiratory diseases, neurological conditions, and infections were common causes of readmission.

Conclusions

Early referral to a CG outpatients service post-discharge for acute HF significantly improves outcomes, highlighting the value of integrated care for older adults with complex needs.

Heart Failure

follow-up

outpatients

outcomes

cardiogeriatrics

Heart failure (HF) is a chronic disabling condition that mainly affects older adults as the result of a complex interplay of age-related diseases and age-associated physiologic changes(1)^,(2). Despite substantial improvements in diagnosis, treatment, and management(3), recent data indicate a concerning rise in HF mortality among patients older than 75(4, 5). Poor treatment adherence, multimorbidity, and the complexity of managing multiple medications, are believed to contribute to these poor outcomes in older patients(6, 7). Moreover, older patients admitted for acute cardiovascular disease are particularly vulnerable since up to 60% of this population has one or more geriatric syndrome at hospital admission(8).

The use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has shown effective in improving survival, reducing risks after hospitalization, and enhancing functional and cognitive performance of older frail patients. In this regard, recent literature underscores the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of HF in the geriatric population(9), emphasizing the value of assessing frailty(1), and evaluating all potential contributors to post-discharge adverse events(10). As a fact, older adults are at significant risk for both cardiac and non-cardiac events within the first 30 days following discharge, when the risk for adverse outcomes is most pronounced(11). According to these notions, guidelines and international consensus emphasize the importance of timely outpatient follow-up, ideally within 7 to 14 days, and no later than 28 days post-discharge(3, 12). However, the integration of cardiology and geriatric care for patients with cardiovascular diseases remains underutilized to date(13). Moreover, enhancing early post-discharge and long-term outcomes through optimized pre- and post-discharge management of patients with acute HF remains a critical unmet need(12).

In 2020, the tertiary care center of Pisa, established a Cardiogeriatric (CG) outpatient service, aiming to implement best practice standards by tailoring a CGA-based, person-centered approach for frail patients older than 75 years who were recently discharged with acute heart failure from a geriatric unit.

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether the establishment of a CG outpatient service reduces one-year mortality compared to usual care; additionally, the study aims to compare the one-year incidence of re-admission, days alive out of hospital (DAOH) until the first re-hospitalization, and to delineate the specific causes of cardiac and non-cardiac re-hospitalizations between the CG and UC groups.

This is a controlled before-and-after study, consisting of both retrospective and prospective components. The retrospective component (i.e, control group) of the study included patients discharged from a geriatric acute unit who received usual post-discharge care. The prospective component (experimental group) included outpatients managed by a CG ambulatory service.

The “before” part: post-discharge usual care

The control group included, with no exclusion criteria, all patients aged 75 or older who were discharged from the geriatric unit of a tertiary care hospital (Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy) with a diagnosis of acute decompensated HF (428.0, 428.2, 428.21, 428.23, 428.31, 428.33, and 428.41 codes of the International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM]) between January 1, 2018, and August 31, 2021. Those with LVEF < 40% were categorized as HFrEF, according to international guidelines. At hospital admission, all patients received a CGA including the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ)(14), the Basic activities of daily living scale (BADL) (15), the Instrumental activities of daily living scale Index (IADL)(16), the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form (MNA-SF)(17) (categorized as absent /at-risk or positive) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale Comorbidity Index (CIRS-CI)(18). The severity of frailty was evaluated through the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS)(19). Data regarding routinary blood tests, medications and polypharmacy at discharge were also collected. Following hospitalization, patients were referred to either a cardiology outpatient clinic or a general practitioner referral.

The “after” part: the post-discharge cardio-geriatric ambulatory service

The experimental group comprised patients aged 75 years or older, with a CFS score greater than 3, who attended our CG ambulatory service between January 1, 2020, and July 31, 2022. Each patient was evaluated by a HF-specialized internal medicine consultant and a HF-specialized geriatrician (one consultant per day, across two different days each week), supported by two geriatric medicine residents and one nurse. Cardiologists were consulted for cases requiring persistent congestion management or intravenous diuretics in a day hospital setting. The service offered 10 clinic slots per week, with each visit lasting 1 hour. Detailed assessments and interventions performed in the CG ambulatory service are outlined in Fig. 1.

Based on the initial CGA and treatment upon discharge, therapeutic strategies and monitoring were individualized according to clinical guidelines. Patients were re-evaluated within 30 days of hospital discharge, following a structured pre-discharge assessment, according to frailty severity, comorbidity, and BNP levels, as they are independent risk factors for short-term HF re-hospitalization or death(20) (Supplemental Fig. 1). Moreover, we implemented a standardized follow-up protocol for patients, combining CGA with a Point-of-Care ultrasound (POCUS) assessment of systemic congestion severity(21). Follow-up visits were scheduled according to the physician's clinical judgment, allowing for additional visits as needed.

Outcomes:

The primary outcome was one-year all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes were one-year re-hospitalizations, and DAOH until the first rehospitalization or death. Mortality rates and re-hospitalizations were assessed via phone calls, ambulatory visits, and computerized hospital records. Follow-up data were collected for all patients. For the DAOH calculation, the follow-up period was defined as the interval from the patient’s discharge date to either the date of the first hospital re-admission or death, whichever occurred first. In instances where neither event occurred within the follow-up period, the observation was extended to the end of the study period.

The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB, Tuscany Regional Ethics Committee for Clinical Experimentation: FUN-sc 23956). The IRB waived the need for informed consent for the retrospective phase, while written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their next of kin for the prospective phase.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistic (IBM SPSS Statistic version 27.0, IBM Corporation and its licensor 1989–2020) and RStudio (RStudio Team: Integrated Development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA). Continuous variables were presented as means and standard deviations, ordinal variables as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), and categorical variables as number of observations and percentages. Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests were used for multiple comparisons. To minimize confounding bias and ensure comparability between treatment and control groups, Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was conducted using the matchit function in R. The matching was performed using a nearest-neighbor algorithm with a 1:1 ratio, based on the following covariates: age, hypertension, sex, BADL, IADL, SPMSQ, CFS, CIRS-CI, HFrEF prevalence and BNP. The balance between the treated and control groups was assessed by comparing standardized mean differences and variance ratios before and after matching. Covariate balance was considered adequate if the standardized mean difference was less than 0.1. For categorical variables, proportions were compared using the chi-square test, while for continuous variables, balance was assessed using t-tests or non-parametric tests as appropriate. Subsequently, mortality risk between the UC and CG groups was evaluated using a Kaplan-Meier estimator. The proportional hazards assumption was checked using Schöenfeld residuals, and the hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was calculated for the CG group compared to the UC group, adjusting for residual confounders identified in the PSM analysis.

Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Overall, 652 patients were included in the study, (mean age 86 years, 56% females), showing a high burden of comorbidities (median CIRS – CI: 6, IQR =3), high prevalence of disability (median ADL 4, IQR =5) and being mostly frail (median CFS 6, IQR = 4). Four-hundred-seventy-seven individuals were included in the UC group, whereas 175 were followed in the CG service. No differences were found in terms of age or sex distribution between CG and UC patients. Patients in the CG group were less frequently frail, more often independent in ADLs and IADLs, had better cognitive performance, and a reduced burden of comorbidities compared to the UC (Table 1). Although the prevalence of chronic diseases was similar between the groups, patients in the UC were more frequently malnourished, as suggested by the MNA-SF scores and the mean serum albumin levels. No differences were observed in median ejection fraction (EF) or HFrEF prevalence.

Regarding HF medication therapy, patients in the CG group were less frequently prescribed beta-blockers and had higher rates of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) use.

Table 1: Comparison between usual care (US) and cardio-geriatric (CG) group.

Characteristic	Overall N = 652	UC N = 477	CG N = 175	p-value
Sex (M)	287 (44%)	210 (44%)	77 (44%)	0.89
Age (Years)	86 (6)	86 (6)	87 (6)	0.34
ADL	4 (5)	4 (5)	5 (5)	0.006
IADL	2 (5)	2 (4)	2 (5)	0.068
CFS	6 (4)	6 (4)	5 (3)	0.010
CIRS- CI	4 (3)	5 (3)	3 (2)	<0.001
SPMSQ	2 (5)	3 (5)	2 (4)	0.001
MNA Malnourishment	216 (33.1)	133 (47.4)	83 (27.8)	<0.001
BNP (mg/dL)	644 (847)	628 (876)	947 (950)	0.012
Creatinine (mg/dl)	1.19 (0.80)	1.19 (0.80)	1.19 (0.74)	0.83
Hemoglobin (g/dL)	11.3 (5.1)	11.2 (5.9)	11.5 (1.9)	0.47
Serum Albumin (g/dL)	3.3 (0.5)	3.2 (0.5)	3.6 (0.3)	<0.001
Atrial Fibrillation	392 (60.1)	286 (59.9)	106 (60.5)	0.7
Hypertension	442 (67.8)	332 (69.9)	110 (62.8)	0.13
Stroke	83 (12.7)	63 (13.2)	20 (11.4)	0.65
COPD	164 (25.1)	120 (25.1)	44 (25.1)	0.81
CKD	246 (37.7)	181 (37.9)	65 (37.1)	0.76
Ejection Fraction, %	55(14)	55(13)	52 (18)	0.36
HFrEF	104 (15.9)	71 (14.8)	33 (18.8)	0.44
CAD	200 (30.6)	170 (35.6)	30 (17.1)	<0.001
DM2	202 (30.9)	153 (32.0)	49 (28.0)	0.43
Loop diuretics	638 (97.8)	472 (98.9)	166 (94.8)	0.38
ACE-i	286 (43.8)	190 (39.8)	86 (49.1)	0.24
ARB	98 (14.9)	77 (16.1)	21 (12.0)	0.43
Beta-blockers	515 (78.9)	391 (81.9)	124 (70.1)	0.03
MRA	191 (29.2)	152 (31.8)	39 (22.1)	0.05
ARNI	15 (2.3)	12 (2.5)	3 (2.1)	0.47
SGLT-2i	16 (2.4)	4 (0.8)	12 (6.4)	0.03
Re-hospitalization	315 (48.3)	252 (52.8)	63 (36.5)	<0.001
1-year all-cause mortality	270 (41.1)	232 (48.6)	35 (20.0)	<0.001
DAOH	174 (145)	156 (145)	300 (100)	<0.001

Continuous variables are expressed as mean SD or median with IQR properly.

Abbreviations: UC:Usual Care; CG: Cardio-Geriatric; ADL: Activities of Daily Living; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; BNP: Brain Natriuretic Peptide; CFS: Clinical Frailty Scale; SPMSQ: Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; CIRS-CI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; LVEF: Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction; ACE-i: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors, ARBs: angiotensin receptor blockers; ARNI: Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor , SGLT-2-i:sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors , DAOH: days alive and out of hospital.

One-year mortality and composite outcome following propensity score matching (PSM)

As shown in Table 2, following the 1:1 PSM, 175 patients receiving UC were compared to 175 patients managed by the CG, with no statistically significant differences observed in main covariates between the groups.

Table 2: Balance of Covariates Before and After Propensity Score Matching.

Covariate	Means/ Proportion CG (BM, n=175)	Means/ Proportion UC (BM, n= 175)	Std. Mean Diff. (BM)	Means/ Proportion CG (AM, n=175)	Means/ Proportion UC (AM, n=175)	Std. Mean Diff. (AM)	Variance Ratio (AM)
Age	86.6529	86.1239	0.0876	86.6529	86.1955	0.0757	0.7640
Male sex	0.5829	0.5451	0.0766	0.5829	0.5771	0.0116	-
Female sex	0.4171	0.4549	-0.0766	0.4171	0.4229	0.0116	-
ADL	3.6400	3.3082	0.1460	3.6400	3.5657	0.0327	1.0581
IADL	2.9086	2.5304	0.1295	2.9086	2.7600	0.0509	1.0884
SPMSQ	2.9314	3.6541	-0.2676	2.9314	3.1886	0.0952	0.9382
CFS	4.9200	5.2013	-0.1710	4.9200	4.9486	0.0174	0.6111
CIRS	3.3314	5.2096	-1.3008	3.3314	3.4171	0.0594	0.7776
HFrEF	0.2457	0.2222	0.0546	0.2457	0.2629	0.0398	-
BNP	830.0114	895.3941	-0.0700	830.0114	836.3371	0.0068	1.255

Abbreviations: UC:Usual Care; CG: Cardio-Geriatric; BM: Before Matching; AM: After Matching; ADL: Activities of Daily Living; IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living; CFS: Clinical Frailty Scale; SPMSQ: Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire; CIRS-CI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; HFrEF: Heart Failure with reduced Ejection Fraction; BNP: Brain Natriuretic Peptide.

At 1-year follow-up, CG patients had a significantly lower prevalence of re-hospitalizations compared to those in the UC group (36.5% vs. 50.8%, p < 0.001) and a lower mortality (20.0% vs. 40.0%, p < 0.001). Patients in the CG group had a 64% risk reduction of the one-year mortality [HR 0.36 (95%CI: 0.26-0.53), log-rank p<0.001)] (see Figure 2).

Overall, patients managed by CG outpatients service had almost the double DAOH (300 ± 100 vs 162 ± 145 days, p <0.001) compared to UC.

Causes of re-hospitalization in standard-of-care group and cardio-geriatric group

In the overall cohort, the distribution of readmission causes did not significantly differ between the UC and CG groups. The rate of heart failure relapse (r-HF) was 33.9% in the UC group and 37.5% in the CG group, while readmissions due to other causes (r-OC) were 66% in the UC group and 62.9% in the CG group.

Patients with r-HF exhibited a higher, though not statistically significant, one-year mortality compared to those with r-OC (33.3% vs. 25%, p=0.47). As shown in Table 3, the predominant causes of readmission in both UC and CG groups were respiratory diseases (14.8% vs. 15%), infectious diseases (11.7% vs. 9.3%), and neurological diseases (7% vs. 9.3%). No significant differences in cause-specific readmissions were observed between the CG and UC groups, except for anemia, which was more common in CG patients (4.6% vs. 0.7%).

Table 3: Main causes of hospital readmission in 1-year follow-up

Diagnosis		Overall, N = 320	UC, N = 256	CG, N = 64	p-value
ADHF (%)		111 (34.6)	87 (33.9)	24 (37.5)	0.59
Respiratory Diseases		48 (15)	38 (14.8)	10 (15.6)	0.87
	COPD exacerbation	10 (20.8)	9 (23.6)	1 (10)
	Pneumonia	18 (37.5)	12 (31.5)	6 (60)
	Aspiration pneumonia	3 (6.2)	3 (7.8)	0 (0)
	Other	17 (35.4)	14 (36.8)	3 (30)
Infective Diseases		36 (11.2)	30 (11.7)	6 (9.3)	0.59
	Sepsis	18 (50)	15 (50)	3 (50)
	UTI	11 (30.5)	9 (30)	2 (33.3)
	Other	7 (19.4)	6 (20)	1 (16.6)
Neurological Diseases		24 (7.5)	18 (7)	6 (9.3)	0.52
	Ischemic Stroke	14 (58.3)	10 (55.5)	4 (66.6)
	Delirium	10 (41.6)	8 (44.4)	2 (33.3)
CV Diseases (%)		21 (6.5)	17 (6.6)	4 (6.2)	0.91
Cancer (%)		14 (4.3)	11 (4.2)	3 (4.6)	0.89
AKI (%)		12 (3.7)	12 (4.6)	0 (0)	0.07
GI Diseases (%)		11 (3.4)	9 (3.5)	2 (3.1)	0.87
Fractures (%)		8 (2.5)	7 (2.7)	1 (1.5)	0.59
Electrolyte Imbalances (%)		5 (1.5)	5 (1.9)	0 (0)	0.26
Anemia (%)		5 (1.5)	2 (0.7)	3 (4.6)	0.02
Other (%)		25 (7.8)	20 (7.8)	5 (7.8)	1

Abbrevations: UC: Usual Care population; CG: Cardio-Geriatric population; ADHF: Acute Decompensated Heart Failure; COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; UTI: Urinary Tract Infection; GI: Gastro-Intestinal Diseases; CV: Cardio-vascular diseases; AKI, Acute Kidney Injury.

In our quasi-experimental pre-post investigation, we demonstrated the effectiveness of early follow-up cardio-geriatric care, revealing a remarkable 66% mortality risk reduction, a substantial decrease in both HF and all-cause re-hospitalizations, and a significant increase in days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH). Based on our findings, integrating a tailored cardio-geriatric approach into early post-discharge care could be a critical strategy for improving outcomes in the most vulnerable older patients, emphasizing the need for individualized care plans that address both cardiovascular and geriatric complexities.

Previous studies have shown the efficacy of early post-discharge ambulatory service in reducing adverse events following hospitalization for acute HF(22,23), but to date, none have specifically dealt on the oldest old individuals, quantifying their frailty and defining a personalized approach based on the domains of the CGA.

Recent data has drawn attention to a concerning mortality trend among individuals aged over 75, diverging from trends observed in younger counterparts(6,7). Despite recent international guidelines advocating for comprehensive management of comorbidities and frailty, very few patients are referred to geriatricians.

In our study more than 4 out of 10 individuals died within one-year from hospital discharge, aligning with a previous study on very old patients with HF, describing a 42% one-year all-cause mortality(24). Interestingly, the significant mortality rate improvement among patients followed by the CG service was particularly pronounced in the early post-hospitalization period. Indeed, within the first 30 days post-discharge, these patients face a high risk of both HF relapse and re-hospitalization for other causes(25,26). By integrating BNP levels, comorbidities, and CFS scores at progressive follow-up intervals and tailoring treatment to address specific deficits, the program effectively reduced readmissions. However, the ratio of cardiac to non-cardiac causes of readmission remained unchanged, highlighting the significant impact of non-cardiac conditions. Consistent with prior studies, the most frequent causes of readmission were respiratory diseases, neurological conditions, and infectious diseases(27,28). Among modifiable re-admissions, we found a decreased rates in exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and aspiration pneumonia, prevalent acute afflictions in frail older patients. In these cases, counselling on proper device handling for COPD, vaccination recommendations, and education of caregivers and patients on appropriate nutrition proved effective in reducing inappropriate hospitalizations.

Non-respiratory infectious diseases were most frequently urinary tract infections, often linked to dehydration and delirium, further compounded by polypharmacy and the use of antihypertensive medications. In this context, a standardized assessment of functional status, nutrition (diet, dysphagia), therapeutic reconciliation (deprescribing, reassessment of medication adherence) proved effective in reducing adverse events. Finally, we observed reduced rehospitalization rates for acute kidney injury and electrolyte imbalances in patients managed with the CG approach compared to UC. Indeed, electrolyte disturbances and dehydration due to diuretic therapy can lead to complications such as constipation, urinary tract infections, and confusion—conditions that are preventable or treatable through appropriate geriatric assessment, drug dosage reduction(29), and proper caregiver training.

Crucially, our findings suggest that an integrated CG approach significantly increases DOAH, which may serve as a more meaningful endpoint than mortality or rehospitalization in the very old patient with HF. By minimizing unnecessary hospitalizations, this approach may alleviate pressure on the healthcare system, freeing up resources for more acute cases. According to the ARNO study(30), a second hospitalization for HF costs approximately 5621 euros per year, while a geriatric ambulatory visit costs to the healthcare system 38 euros(31), highlighting the remarkable cost-effectiveness of this model. This suggests a potential for widespread implementation, which could lead to significant healthcare savings and better outcomes for the aging population.

Healthcare systems may benefit from adopting a more integrative approach that bridges the traditionally separate domains of cardiology and geriatrics. The demonstrable benefits of this approach extend beyond clinical outcomes, impacting healthcare utilization and costs. As the global population continues to age, embracing such comprehensive care models becomes imperative for improving the overall health trajectory of older individuals. Future research should explore the generalizability of the CG model across various healthcare settings and diverse populations. Additionally, assessing the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of this approach on a larger scale could offer further insights into its potential as a transformative healthcare strategy.

This study is subject to several limitations that warrant consideration. Firstly, potential selection bias may have influenced the outcomes, as patients more capable of traveling to the CG outpatient service were more likely to be evaluated, leading to potential underrepresentation of patients who were too frail or unable to attend. Additionally, the balance between the CG and UC groups was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly slowed the enrollment process from 2020 to 2021. Despite these challenges, the robustness of the findings is supported by comprehensive adjustments for frailty, multimorbidity, and primary risk factors, facilitated by a 1:1 PSM ratio that helps to mitigate these biases. Notwithstanding, the study's single-center design limits the generalizability of the findings to other settings. Furthermore, the absence of data on post-heart failure rehabilitation could affect the interpretation of the outcomes. As a before-and-after study, there is also the possibility of unmeasured confounders influencing the results, though extensive adjustments for baseline comorbidities support the replicability of the observed effects. Lastly, improvements in outcomes over time might be partly attributable to enhanced clinician performance, underscoring the need for further validation through randomized controlled trials comparing cardiological and geriatric outpatient care across multiple centers.

The CG ambulatory service demonstrated substantial effectiveness in reducing one-year all-cause mortality, as well as hospital readmissions for both HF and non-HF causes, among frail older patients recently discharged after an acute HF episode. By significantly increasing the DOAH, this integrated approach not only improved clinical outcomes but also enhanced overall patient well-being. These findings underscore the potential of the CG ambulatory model to address the complex needs of the older HF population, emphasizing the importance of a tailored, multidisciplinary care strategy. Further investigation into the scalability and impact of this model across different healthcare settings and diverse patient populations is warranted to confirm and expand upon these promising results.

ACE-i: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors

ADHF: Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

ADL: Activities of Daily Living

AKI: Acute Kidney Injury

ARB: Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

ARNI: Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor

BADL: Basic Activities of Daily Living

BNP: Brain Natriuretic Peptide

CFS: Clinical Frailty Scale

CG: Cardio-Geriatric

CGA: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment

CIRS-CI: Cumulative Illness Rating Scale Comorbidity Index

COPD: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

CV: Cardiovascular

DAOH: Days Alive and Out of Hospital

GI: Gastrointestinal

HF: Heart Failure

HFrEF: Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

IADL: Instrumental Activities of Daily Living

LVEF: Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

MNA-SF: Mini Nutritional Assessment Short Form

MRA: Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists

PSM: Propensity Score Matching

SGLT-2i: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors

SPMSQ: Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire

UC: Usual Care

UTI: Urinary Tract Infection

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB, Tuscany Regional Ethics Committee for Clinical Experimentation: FUN-sc 23956). The IRB waived the need for informed consent for the retrospective phase, while written informed consent was obtained from all participants or their next of kin for the prospective phase.

Availability of data and materials: The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Funding: none

Authors’ Contributions:

CO and TM: study concept and design. GD, LM, GP, MGB, VG, AG: acquisition of subjects and management of the dataset; CO, TM, AF manuscript drafting. CO, TM and GP: analysis and interpretation of the data, manuscript completion. CO, GP, AV: study design, data and manuscript revision

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the Cardiogeriatrics Research Group of Pisa University Hospital for their valuable support and contribution to this study.

Clinical trial number: not applicable

Sponsor’s Role: none

Dharmarajan K, Rich MW. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Prognosis of Heart Failure in Older Adults. Heart Failure Clinics. 2017;13(3):417–26.
Van Riet EES, Hoes AW, Wagenaar KP, Limburg A, Landman MAJ, Rutten FH. Epidemiology of heart failure: The prevalence of heart failure and ventricular dysfunction in older adults over time. A systematic review. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2016 Mar 1;18(3):242–52.
McDonagh TA, Metra M, Adamo M, Gardner RS, Baumbach A, Böhm M, et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contributio. European Heart Journal. 2021 Sep;42(36):3599–726.
Pandey A, Kitzman D, Reeves G. Frailty Is Intertwined With Heart Failure: Mechanisms, Prevalence, Prognosis, Assessment, and Management. JACC: Heart Failure. 2019;7(12):1001–11.
Pandey A, Kitzman D, Whellan DJ, Duncan PW, Mentz RJ, Pastva AM, et al. Frailty Among Older Decompensated Heart Failure Patients: Prevalence, Association With Patient-Centered Outcomes, and Efficient Detection Methods. JACC Heart Fail. 2019 Dec;7(12):1079–88.
Garred CH, Malmborg M, Malik ME, Zahir D, Christensen DM, Arulmurugananthavadivel A, et al. Age-specific mortality trends in heart failure over 25 years: a retrospective Danish nationwide cohort study. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2024 May;5(5):e326–35.
Sayed A, Abramov D, Fonarow GC, Mamas MA, Kobo O, Butler J, et al. Reversals in the Decline of Heart Failure Mortality in the US, 1999 to 2021. JAMA Cardiol. 2024 Jun 1;9(6):585–9.
Yang X, Lupón J, Vidán MT, Ferguson C, Gastelurrutia P, Newton PJ, et al. Impact of Frailty on Mortality and Hospitalization in Chronic Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Dec 4;7(23):e008251.
Sabouret P, Attias D, Beauvais C, Berthelot E, Bouleti C, Gibault Genty G, et al. Diagnosis and management of heart failure from hospital admission to discharge: A practical expert guidance. Annales de Cardiologie et d’Angeiologie. 2022;71(1):41–52.
Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022 May 3;145(18):e895–1032.
Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go AS. Post-discharge Follow-up Characteristics Associated With 30-Day Readmission After Heart Failure Hospitalization. Med Care. 2016 Apr;54(4):365–72.
Metra M, Adamo M, Tomasoni D, Mebazaa A, Bayes-Genis A, Abdelhamid M, et al. Pre-discharge and early post-discharge management of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: A scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023 Jul;25(7):1115–31.
Díez-Villanueva P, Jiménez-Méndez C, Alfonso F. Heart failure in the elderly. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2021 Mar 28;18(3):219–32.
Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1975 Oct;23(10):433–41.
Katz S, Ford Ab, Moskowitz Rw, Jackson Ba, Jaffe Mw. Studies Of Illness In The Aged. The Index Of Adl: A Standardized Measure Of Biological And Psychosocial Function. JAMA. 1963 Sep;185:914–9.
Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. The Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179–86.
Vellas B, Guigoz Y, Garry PJ, Nourhashemi F, Bennahum D, Lauque S, et al. The Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) and its use in grading the nutritional state of elderly patients. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 1999 Feb;15(2):116–22.
Parmelee PA, Thuras PD, Katz IR, Lawton MP. Validation of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale in a geriatric residential population. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 1995 Feb;43(2):130–7.
Church S, Rogers E, Rockwood K, Theou O. A scoping review of the Clinical Frailty Scale. BMC geriatrics. 2020 Oct;20(1):393.
Okoye C, Mazzarone T, Niccolai F, Bencivenga L, Pescatore G, Bianco MG, et al. Predicting mortality and re-hospitalization for heart failure: a machine-learning and cluster analysis on frailty and comorbidity. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research. 2023 Dec 1;35(12):2919.
Mazzarone T, Morelli V, Giusti A, Bianco MG, Maccioni L, Cargiolli C, et al. Predicting In-Hospital Acute Heart Failure Worsening in the Oldest Old: Insights from Point-of-Care Ultrasound. J Clin Med. 2023 Nov 30;12(23):7423.
Dev S, Fawcett J, Ahmad S, Wu WC, Schwenke D. Implementation of early follow-up care after heart failure hospitalization. Am J Manag Care. 2021 Feb 1;27(2):e42–7.
Hernandez AF, Greiner MA, Fonarow GC, Hammill BG, Heidenreich PA, Yancy CW, et al. Relationship between early physician follow-up and 30-day readmission among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure. JAMA. 2010 May 5;303(17):1716–22.
Lorenzo M, de la Espriella R, Miñana G, Núñez G, Santas E, Núñez E, et al. Clinical profile and 1-year clinical outcomes of super elderly patients admitted with acute heart failure. Eur J Intern Med. 2020 Nov;81:78–82.
Avaldi VM, Lenzi J, Castaldini I, Urbinati S, Pasquale GD, Morini M, et al. Hospital Readmissions of Patients with Heart Failure: The Impact of Hospital and Primary Care Organizational Factors in Northern Italy. PLOS ONE. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0127796.
Fleg JL. Preventing Readmission After Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure: A Quest Incompletely Fulfilled. JACC Heart failure. 2018 Feb;6(2):153–5.
Lawson C, Crothers H, Remsing S, Squire I, Zaccardi F, Davies M, et al. Trends in 30-day readmissions following hospitalisation for heart failure by sex, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. eClinicalMedicine [Internet]. 2021 Aug 1 [cited 2024 Aug 18];38. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00288-1/fulltext
Lawson CA, Zaccardi F, Squire I, Ling S, Davies MJ, Lam CSP, et al. 20-Year Trends in Cause-Specific Heart Failure Outcomes By Sex, Socioeconomic Status, and Place of Diagnosis: a Population-Based Study. The Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(8):e406–20.
Okoye C, Mazzarone T, Cargiolli C, Guarino D. Discontinuation of Loop Diuretics in Older Patients with Chronic Stable Heart Failure: A Narrative Review. Drugs Aging. 2023 Nov;40(11):981–90.
Maggioni AP, Orso F, Calabria S, Rossi E, Cinconze E, Baldasseroni S, et al. The real-world evidence of heart failure: findings from 41 413 patients of the ARNO database. European Journal of Heart Failure. 2016;18(4):402–10.
Salute M della. Tariffari nazionali delle prestazioni del Ssn [Internet]. [cited 2024 Aug 14]. Available from: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/temi/p2_6.jsp?lingua=italiano&id=3662&area=programmazioneSanitariaLea&menu=vuoto

No competing interests reported.

supplementalfigure1cg.tif
Supplemental Figure 1. Structured pre-discharge assessment and timing for Cardio-Geriatric outpatient service first visit.

Outcomes of early post-discharge cardio-geriatric care in frail patients after acute heart failure: A before-and-after study

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Figures

BACKGROUND

METHODS

The “before” part: post-discharge usual care

The “after” part: the post-discharge cardio-geriatric ambulatory service

Outcomes:

Statistical Analysis

RESULTS

Discussion

CONCLUSIONS

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1