Loading…

Benefits of a comprehensive care model in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction: The UMIPIC program

Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to those with reduced ejection fraction, are older, have more comorbidities, and are not candidates for effective therapeutic measures. Therefore, they are at high risk for hospital admission and mortality. This st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Revista clínica espanõla (English edition) 2022-06, Vol.222 (6), p.339-347
Main Authors: Cerqueiro-González, J.M., González-Franco, Á., Carrascosa-García, S., Soler-Rangel, L., Ruiz-Laiglesia, F.J., Epelde-Gonzalo, F., Dávila-Ramos, M.F., Casado-Cerrada, J., Casariego-Vales, E., Manzano, L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), in contrast to those with reduced ejection fraction, are older, have more comorbidities, and are not candidates for effective therapeutic measures. Therefore, they are at high risk for hospital admission and mortality. This study evaluated the benefit of a comprehensive continuous care program (UMIPIC program) in patients with HFpEF. We prospectively analyzed data on 2401 patients with HFpEF attended to in internal medicine departments who form part of the RICA registry. They were divided into 2 groups: one was followed-up on in the UMIPIC program (UMIPIC group, n: 1011) and another received conventional care (RICA group, n: 1390). A total of 753 patients in each group were selected by propensity score matching and admissions and mortality were assessed during 12 months of follow-up after an episode of hospitalization due to HF. Compared to the RICA group, the UMIPIC group had a lower rate of HF admissions (19.2% versus 36.5%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45–0.68; p 
ISSN:2254-8874
2254-8874
DOI:10.1016/j.rceng.2021.11.006