Research

Optimising Management of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Primary Care (OPTIMISE-HFpEF): rationale and protocol for a multi-method study

Faye Forsyth, Jonathan Mant, Clare J Taylor, FD Richard Hobbs, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Thomas Blakeman, Emma Sowden, Aaron Long, Muhammad Zakir Hossain, Duncan Edwards and Christi Deaton
BJGP Open 2019; 3 (4): bjgpopen19X101675. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen19X101675

Abstract

Background Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less well understood than heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), with greater diagnostic difficulty and management uncertainty.

Aim The primary aim is to develop an optimised programme that is informed by the needs and experiences of people with HFpEF and healthcare providers. This article presents the rationale and protocol for the Optimising Management of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Primary Care (OPTIMISE-HFpEF) research programme.

Design & setting This is a multi-method programme of research conducted in the UK.

Method OPTIMISE-HFpEF is a multi-site programme of research with three distinct work packages (WPs). WP1 is a systematic review of heart failure disease management programmes (HF-DMPs) tested in patients with HFpEF. WP2 has three components (a, b, c) that enable the characteristics, needs, and experiences of people with HFpEF, their carers, and healthcare providers to be understood. Qualitative enquiry (WP2a) with patients and providers will be conducted in three UK sites exploring patient and provider perspectives, with an additional qualitative component (WP2c) in one site to focus on transitions in care and carer perspectives. A longitudinal cohort study (WP2b), recruiting from four UK sites, will allow patients to be characterised and their illness trajectory observed across 1 year of follow-up. Finally, WP3 will synthesise the findings and conduct work to gain consensus on how best to identify and manage this patient group.

Results Results from the four work packages will be synthesised to produce a summary of key learning points and possible solutions (optimised programme) which will be presented to a broad spectrum of stakeholders to gain consensus on a way forward.

Conclusion HFpEF is often described as the greatest unmet need in cardiology. The OPTIMISE-HFpEF programme aims to address this need in primary care, which is arguably the most appropriate setting for managing HFpEF.

How this fits in

HFpEF is poorly recognised and managed in the community. As HFpEF is set to become the dominant form of heart failure (HF), it is vital that effective primary care-based programmes of identification and management are developed. The OPTIMISE-HFpEF programme of research aims to fill this void.

Introduction

HFpEF is less well understood than HFrEF and is associated with greater diagnostic difficulty and management uncertainty.1 Half of all HF cases may be attributable to HFpEF, and prevalence is rising at a rate of 1% annually.1–3 Although mortality for all-cause HF in the UK has modestly improved, no treatment has yet been shown to improve mortality and morbidity in HFpEF.4,5 Lack of evidence for pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning the disease, effective pharmacotherapies, and disease management programmes specifically targeting HFpEF hamper progress. It is perhaps unsurprising then that clinicians may, to coin Oktay and Shah, ' approach HFpEF with diagnostic and therapeutic nihilism '.6

This article presents the rationale and protocol for the OPTIMISE-HFpEF research programme (https://www.optimisehfpef.phpc.cam.ac.uk/), in line with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.7 This project aims to explore the views of people with HFpEF and the multiple stakeholders involved in HFpEF care; phenotype a UK cohort; and undertake consensus methods to develop an optimised programme that would provide guidance to clinicians in diagnosing and managing HFpEF.

Background and rationale

The emergence of HFpEF as a clinical syndrome has been, and continues to be, controversial.4 There are uncertainties along the entire spectrum from mechanisms and diagnosis to treatment and management. Understanding of underlying pathophysiological processes continues to develop through research, and varying models have been proposed to explain the abnormal cardiac structure and function observed.2,4,8 The current preferred paradigm is that microvascular endothelial inflammation, driven by coexisting conditions, leads to myocardial inflammation and fibrosis that in turn results in increased oxidative stress and alterations in cardiomyocyte signalling.2,8 Diagnostically, while definitions and criteria have been tightened, universal consensus and a definitive algorithm are lacking.9–11 In treatment terms, evidence-based pharmacological therapies and device options are limited and developments lag behind those observed in HFrEF.4 Disease management programmes consistently demonstrating reduced mortality and re-hospitalisation rates in HF do not frequently include or explicitly analyse data on HFpEF;12,13 therefore, benefits observed cannot confidently be extrapolated. Lastly, a persistent gap between best and current practice exists, which is compounded by a lack of integrated care.14–16

The outcome of these challenges in HFpEF is high rates of hospitalisation, mortality, poor functioning, and low quality of life.3,17 Some authorities have already called for dedicated HFpEF clinical programmes, and lessons will be garnered from pioneering initiatives.18 However, while they acknowledge the necessity of the primary care provider, there is a lack of specificity and focus on the role of general practice.

General practice has a key role in all parts of the HF patient pathway, from initiating diagnosis to long-term management;19,20 a pathway enshrined in national guidelines.21,22 However, even national guidelines pay sparse attention to HFpEF, dedicating the majority of the content to HFrEF (see Appendix A in supplementary materials for an overview of current recommendations). They do not address or troubleshoot many of the key issues debated in HFpEF research; for example, the lack of specificity of echocardiogram to accurately capture diastolic left ventricle dysfunction,23–25 the frequent absence of echocardiographic evidence of structural heart disease in invasively confirmed HFpEF,26 and the poor sensitivity of natriuretic peptides in HFpEF.27,28 All the latter are key components of HFpEF diagnostic algorithms in the UK. Moreover, they lack the necessary focus on exercise, which has pleiotropic effects on systemic endothelial function and therefore improves symptoms and quality of life.29

Others have already argued an effective pathway to achieve cohesive primary and/or specialist co-management remains elusive and the current structure of care is suboptimal.30 In HFpEF, the need to establish this is ever more pressing given the increasing prevalence, the burden of multimorbidity, and the complex interplay of medical, psychological, behavioural, and social factors for this group.31 Optimally managing a vulnerable and complex population of older adults, in a pragmatic and patient-centred way, is arguably better addressed by generalists familiar with patient preferences and priorities and the application of comprehensive and multidimensional assessment.32

Why this research is needed

HFpEF is poorly recognised and managed in the community. As HFpEF is set to become the dominant form of HF, it is vital that effective primary care-based programmes of identification and management are developed. The OPTIMISE-HFpEF programme of research aims to fill this void by: (1) finding out what patients and providers want; (2) understanding what people with HFpEF are like in the UK, through detailed phenotypic characterisation of a large cohort; and (3) exploring common problematic areas like transitions of care (any move from one care setting to the next, most often hospital to home), hospitalisations, and the support of carers (see Table 1). Results generated will be synthesised, and both face-to-face and online consensus methods employed to develop and refine an optimised programme of management.

View this table:
Table 1. Work package details

Aim

The primary aim is to investigate HFpEF with the view to developing an optimised programme that is informed by the needs and experiences of people with HFpEF and healthcare providers. A secondary aim is to gauge stakeholder consensus on the optimised programme using online and face-to-face consensus methods.

Method

Study design

An optimised programme would constitute a complex intervention; therefore, the multi-stage cyclical process consisting of four key elements outlined by the Medical Research Council (MRC) has been adopted.33 The resulting mixed-methods approach consisting of five WPs is cognisant of these key elements (see Table 1 and Figure 1) and has been designed to maximise opportunities for theorising, iterative development, and pragmatic modelling of contextual, organisational, and logistical factors. Each of the WPs also has ‘legacy elements’; therefore, the emerging programme of care can be tested and critiqued by ‘end users’, either qualitatively via networks and cohorts of patients, carers, and providers (WP2a and WP2c), or quantitatively in an established cohort of HFpEF patients (WP2b).

Figure 1.
Figure 1. OPTIMISE-HFpEF programme of research

HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. WP = work package.

Setting

Multiple sites were involved to enhance the diversity of the sample in each cohort (see Table 1).

Participants

Participants in WP2a and WP2b must meet the following inclusion criteria: adult patients with diagnosed or suspected HFpEF, and the ability to communicate in English. Diagnosed or suspected HFpEF was defined as anyone diagnosed with non-valvular HF that (i) were not diagnosed with left ventricular systolic dysfunction or have a documented ejection fraction (EF) <50%; or (ii) have a reported ‘normal’ or preserved EF (that is, >50%); or (iii) have an echocardiogram reporting structural heart disease or diastolic dysfunction without moderate to severe systolic dysfunction. Although the European Society of Cardiology guideline is used to diagnose HFpEF9 in WP2b, this pragmatic definition was employed given the literature detailing the challenges of identifying patients with HF from primary care records.34–36

The following exclusion criteria were applied to WP2a and WP2b: any severe neurocognitive condition that would confound outcome assessment; New York Heart Association class IV classification; or other life-threatening condition. Heart failure exacerbations resulting in hospitalisation in the 6 weeks before screening were included in WP2b owing to the nature of the physical assessments. Participants in WP2c will include patients from WP2b who have a confirmed diagnosis of HFpEF and have experienced hospitalisation for HF or a comorbid condition. Adult carers will be invited via patient participants. No specific inclusion or exclusion criteria will be applied to WP3, with the aim of recruiting a heterogeneous panel representative of a range of views.

Patients with HFpEF in WP2a and WP2b will be identified with the support of the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Networks (NIHR CRN). In brief, the NIHR CRN offers a range of support to help researchers plan, set up, and deliver research. In this case, assistance was sought to gain access to general practices that were provided with an electronic medical record screening algorithm to enable identification of potential participants. A GP within the practice screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria before inviting eligible patients. Patients interested in taking part were asked to return an expression of interest form to the research team. The research team contacted those interested to discuss the study in detail (including any risks and/or benefits, and right to withdraw) before written informed consent was sought (see Figure 2). Purposive sampling will be used in WP2c to target patients with confirmed HFpEF that have experienced a hospitalisation; snowball sampling will be used to recruit their carers. The WP3 sample will be recruited via current WPs and local networks.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Flow of participants

HFpEF = heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. WP = work package.

A patient advisory group is active within the study, and continues to provide input.

Variables and data sources

WP1 was a systematic review of controlled studies of HF-DMPs that included patients with HFpEF. Four bibliographic databases were searched, yielding 6089 titles that were screened against an agreed protocol (see PROSPERO https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/). Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 1866 patients with HFpEF. All studies were assessed against a ‘disease management programme taxonomy’ and scored for complexity, intensity, and bias. The review concluded HF-DMPs may improve mortality, hospitalisation rates, self-care, and quality of life in patients with HFpEF; however, further research specifically tailored to HFpEF is required.

In WP2a and WP2c, sociodemographic data, interview notes and/or reflections, and interview recordings will form the main data sources. In WP2c, the caring relationship and arrangement will be documented and the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT) completed.37 Hospitalisations will be validated via Hospital Episode Statistics (details of all admissions, accident and emergency attendances, and outpatient appointments at NHS hospitals in England).

WP2b will collect sociodemographic, behavioural, clinical, and quality-of-life data at baseline, 6, and 12 months (Table 2). The aim is to phenotype and follow a UK cohort over a 1-year period. As such, there is no primary outcome or comparison; analysis will be descriptive and exploratory. To date, much of the insight into the clinical characteristics of HFpEF comes from randomised controlled trials of drug therapies. Such studies have stringent inclusion criteria that exclude the very old and those with significant multimorbidity or functional impairments — arguably the ‘typical’ patient with HFpEF.20 Refined characterisation of a representative, real-world cohort will help with effective targeting of the components in the final programme of care.

View this table:
Table 2. WP2b clinical and behavioural variables

The results of findings from all the WPs will be integrated to produce a position article that will form the basis of the questions presented in the modified Delphi online elicitation approach. This methodology produces ratings and rankings of statements as well as qualitative online discussion data from expert panel members.

Bias and fidelity

All study procedures will be conducted in accordance with the respective protocols (see https://www.optimisehfpef.phpc.cam.ac.uk/) and in line with the principles outlined in the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guideline.38 WP2a and WP2c will use a semi-structured interview template that will guide the interview process while also allowing flexibility for exploration of specific issues. WP2b has a comprehensive Manual of Operations and Procedures to standardise practice in relation to outcome measure collection.

Study size

WP2a will recruit up to 100 patients and healthcare professionals. WP2c will recruit 40 previously hospitalised patients with HFpEF and their carers. The sample size for the qualitative components is an approximation of the number of subjects required based on previous research; the adequacy will be evaluated during the research process.39

The planned sample size in WP2b is 270 patients. This estimate is based on exemplar calculations to ensure confidence in the estimates of characteristics and changes in measures over 1 year, but is also cognisant of practical logistical considerations and rapidly changing diagnostic criteria in HFpEF. Previous research has demonstrated difficulty in confirming HFpEF from primary care records owing to the absence of diagnostic information.30 Based on this, it is estimated up to around 25% of referred patients will not have HFpEF after cardiologist review of baseline data. The final sample size was not adjusted for attrition.

Statistical and qualitative analysis methods

The main data source in WP2a and WP2c will be qualitative semi-structured interview recordings and verbatim transcripts. These will be analysed using the framework method40 to gain insight into the perspectives of patients receiving HFpEF care and their carers, and of primary and secondary healthcare providers planning and delivering that care across three regions in England. The framework method employs a structured approach and the main output — a matrix of charted cases, codes, and summarised data excerpts — enables researchers to ‘systematically reduce’ the data to aid interpretation.40,41 Data will be organised in NVivo (version 12) and Microsoft Excel (version 14.0.7237.5000) software. A thematic framework (coding scheme) will be developed, before indexing, charting, describing, and interpreting the data.40,41 The analysis will be both inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-driven), with burden of treatment and minimally disruptive medicine models employed as sensitising frameworks.42,43 WP2c will follow a similar analysis pathway; deductive analysis will be driven by burden of treatment theory (hospitalised patients) and the CSNAT (carers).

Where possible, descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions, mean and standard deviation, or median and interquartile range, as appropriate) will be presented for all WPs. In WP2b, pre-specified baseline comparisons will determine differences by sex, body mass, and presence of frailty. In addition to robust clinical information, the cohort will be described according to patient-reported measures on symptoms, self-management, HF specific quality of life, and physical activity. Reported physical activity will be validated against information from activity monitors regarding both level of activity and time spent sedentary. A similar analysis will be conducted with data from the 6- and 12-month follow-up to determine changes in variables from baseline. Data on outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalisations and mortality, length of stay in hospital, readmissions, and timeframes of readmissions) will be collected over the 12-month period.

Analysis in WP3 will be managed via an online platform, which enables quantitative, categorical, and text data analysis from all rounds of the elicitation and is conducted in four stages: preliminary data analysis, analysis of agreement, data modelling, and analysis of changes in responses.44,45

Dissemination

Dissemination of the study findings will include at least one peer-reviewed article from each WP, and presentations at appropriate primary care and specialist conferences.

Discussion

Summary

This multi-method programme aims to explore the views of the multiple parties involved in HFpEF care; to characterise a UK cohort of HFpEF patients; and to explore hospitalisation, transitions of care, and carer burden with a view to informing the development of an optimised programme of care. The optimised programme would be developed using consensus methods via an online platform that would refine programme components and preliminarily assess feasibility. The final programme would then undergo further testing in a cohort of patients with confirmed HFpEF.

Strengths and limitations

The strengths of this programme are the patient, carer, and health professional focus and the particular emphasis on pragmatic, primary care-based solutions. Heart failure is usually identified and managed long term in the primary care setting, however there is an absence of much needed guidance and support available for GPs. The main limitation of this project relates to testing the findings of the consensus work (WP3); this would be subject to future funding.

Comparison with existing literature

There is a growing body of research in HFpEF owing to its status as the 'greatest unmet need in cardiology’.29 However, much of this research is in the highly specialist or tertiary setting, and there is a dearth of literature on the role of generalists in HFpEF identification, diagnosis, and management. Smeets and colleagues have proposed a multi-component optimisation intervention in the primary care setting (OSCAR-HF pilot study); this, however is in HF generally as opposed to HFpEF specifically.46

Implications for research and practice

HFpEF is an underrecognised condition that poses many challenges for clinicians. This programme seeks to understand these problems from the perspective of patients, their carers, and the healthcare professionals who look after them, with a view to establishing an optimised programme of management that is cognisant of these issues.

Notes

Funding

This work is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research Grant (reference number 384). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the NHS, or the Department of Health.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval has been granted for all research undertaken within each WP: 17-NE-0199 (WP2a), 17-LO-2136 (WP2b), 18-NW-0823 (WP2c). Clinical assessments and tests undertaken in WP2b will be conducted in clinical settings with qualified staff and appropriate safeguards.

Trial registration number

WP1 is registered on PROSPERO (reference number: CRD42017067980). WP2b is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (reference number: NCT03617848).

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Patient consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Acknowledgements

Recruitment support for WP2a and WP2b was provided by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. WP2b research was carried out at/supported by the NIHR Cambridge Clinical Research Facility Facilities and the Oxford Cardiovascular Clinical Research Centre.

Competing interests

FDRH acknowledges his part-funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Health Research and Care (CLARHC) Oxford, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), and the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative (MIC).

  • Received July 18, 2019.
  • Accepted August 27, 2019.

This article is Open Access: CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Oktay AA,
    2. Rich JD,
    3. Shah SJ
    (2013) The emerging epidemic of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Curr Heart Fail Rep 10(4):401–410, doi:10.1007/s11897-013-0155-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Redfield MM
    (2017) Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med 376(9), doi:10.1056/NEJMc1615918. 897.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lam CSP,
    2. Donal E,
    3. Kraigher-Krainer E,
    4. Vasan RS
    (2011) Epidemiology and clinical course of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Eur J Heart Fail 13(1):18–28, doi:10.1093/eurjhf/hfq121.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Ferrari R,
    2. Böhm M,
    3. Cleland JGF,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: uncertainties and dilemmas. Eur J Heart Fail 17(7):665–671, doi:10.1002/ejhf.304.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Taylor CJ,
    2. Ordóñez-Mena JM,
    3. Roalfe AK,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Trends in survival after a diagnosis of heart failure in the United Kingdom 2000–2017: population based cohort study. BMJ 364:l223, doi:10.1136/bmj.l223.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Oktay A,
    2. Shah S
    (2014) Diagnosis and management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: 10 key lessons. Curr Cardiol Rev 11(1):42–52, doi:10.2174/1573403X09666131117131217.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. von Elm E,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Egger M,
    4. et al.
    (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Paulus WJ,
    2. Tschöpe C
    (2013) A novel paradigm for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: comorbidities drive myocardial dysfunction and remodeling through coronary microvascular endothelial inflammation. J Am Coll Cardiol 62(4):263–271, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.092.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ponikowski P,
    2. Voors AA,
    3. Anker SD,
    4. et al.
    (2016) 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J 37(27):2129–2200, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Huis In 't Veld AE,
    2. de Man FS,
    3. van Rossum AC,
    4. Handoko ML
    (2016) How to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the value of invasive stress testing. Neth Heart J 24(4):244–251, doi:10.1007/s12471-016-0811-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nagueh SF,
    2. Smiseth OA,
    3. Appleton CP,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 29(4):277–314, doi:10.1016/j.echo.2016.01.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Phillips CO,
    2. Wright SM,
    3. Kern DE,
    4. et al.
    (2004) Comprehensive discharge planning with postdischarge support for older patients with congestive heart failure: a meta-analysis. JAMA 291(11):1358–1367, doi:10.1001/jama.291.11.1358.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Gandhi S,
    2. Mosleh W,
    3. Sharma UC,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Multidisciplinary heart failure clinics are associated with lower heart failure hospitalization and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 33(10):1237–1244, doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2017.05.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. 14.↵
    1. Simmonds R,
    2. Glogowska M,
    3. McLachlan S,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Unplanned admissions and the organisational management of heart failure: a multicentre ethnographic, qualitative study. BMJ Open 5(10), doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007522. e007522.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.
    1. Sutherland K
    (2010) Bridging the quality gap: heart failure. 30 Oct 2019. https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/BridgingTheQualityGapHeartFailure_0.pdf.
  16. 16.↵
    1. Howlett J,
    2. Comin-Colet J,
    3. Dickstein K,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Clinical practices and attitudes regarding the diagnosis and management of heart failure: findings from the core needs assessment survey. ESC Heart Fail 5(1):172–183, doi:10.1002/ehf2.12205.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.↵
    1. Upadhya B,
    2. Pisani B,
    3. Kitzman DW
    (2017) Evolution of a geriatric syndrome: pathophysiology and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Am Geriatr Soc 65(11):2431–2440, doi:10.1111/jgs.15141.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. 18.↵
    1. Shah SJ,
    2. Cogswell R,
    3. Ryan JJ,
    4. Sharma K
    (2016) How to develop and implement a specialized heart failure with preserved ejection fraction clinical program. Curr Cardiol Rep 18(12), doi:10.1007/s11886-016-0802-1. 122.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. 19.↵
    1. Taylor CJ,
    2. Ryan R,
    3. Nichols L,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Survival following a diagnosis of heart failure in primary care. Fam Pract 34(2):161–168, doi:10.1093/fampra/cmw145.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Rutten FH,
    2. Gallagher J
    (2016) What the general practitioner needs to know about their chronic heart failure patient. Card Fail Rev 2(2):79–84, doi:10.15420/cfr.2016:18:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network
    (2016) SIGN 147. Management of chronic heart failure. 30 Oct 2019. https://www.sign.ac.uk/assets/sign147.pdf.
  22. 22.↵
    1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
    (2018) Chronic heart failure in adults: diagnosis and management [NICE clinical guideline 106]. 30 Oct 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng106/resources/chronic-heart-failure-in-adults-diagnosis-and-management-pdf-66141541311685.
  23. 23.↵
    1. Borlaug BA,
    2. Paulus WJ
    (2011) Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Eur Heart J 32(6):670–679, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq426.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Henein M,
    2. Owen A,
    3. Henien MOA
    (2010) HFNEF breathlessness: is it really heart failure? Int J Cardiol 143(2):111–112, doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.04.025.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Lam CSP
    (2010) Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: invasive solution to diagnostic confusion? J Am Coll Cardiol 55(16):1711–1712, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.12.034.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Ho JE,
    2. Zern EK,
    3. Wooster L,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Differential clinical profiles, exercise responses, and outcomes associated with existing HFpEF definitions. Circulation 140(5):353–365, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039136.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Anjan VY,
    2. Loftus TM,
    3. Burke MA,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Prevalence, clinical phenotype, and outcomes associated with normal B-type natriuretic peptide levels in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol 110(6):870–876, doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.05.014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Taylor CJ,
    2. Monahan M,
    3. Roalfe AK,
    4. et al.
    (2017) The refer (refer for echocardiogram) study: a prospective validation and health economic analysis of a clinical decision rule, NT-proBNP or their combination in the diagnosis of heart failure in primary care. Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation 4(3):1–56, doi:10.3310/eme04030.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. 29.↵
    1. Gevaert AB,
    2. Boen JRA,
    3. Segers VF,
    4. Van Craenenbroeck EM
    (2019) Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a review of cardiac and noncardiac pathophysiology. Front Physiol 10, doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.00638. 638.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  30. 30.↵
    1. McDonald K,
    2. Gallagher J
    (2017) The practice gap in heart failure-the elephant in the room. Eur J Heart Fail 19(3):301–303, doi:10.1002/ejhf.734.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  31. 31.↵
    1. Gorodeski EZ,
    2. Goyal P,
    3. Hummel SL,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Domain management approach to heart failure in the geriatric patient. J Am Coll Cardiol 71(17):1921–1936, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.059.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Jones NR,
    2. Hobbs FDR,
    3. Taylor CJ
    (2017) The management of diagnosed heart failure in older people in primary care. Maturitas 106:26–30, doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.08.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. 33.↵
    1. Craig P,
    2. Dieppe P,
    3. Macintyre S,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Smeets M,
    2. Henrard S,
    3. Aertgeerts B,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Methods to identify heart failure patients in general practice and their impact on patient characteristics: a systematic review. Int J Cardiol 257:199–206, doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.06.108.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. 35.
    1. Valk MJ,
    2. Mosterd A,
    3. Broekhuizen BD,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Overdiagnosis of heart failure in primary care: a cross-sectional study. Br J Gen Pract 66(649):e587–e592, doi:10.3399/bjgp16X685705.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. 36.↵
    1. Deaton C,
    2. Edwards D,
    3. Malyon A,
    4. et al.
    (2018) The tip of the iceberg: finding patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction in primary care. An observational study. BJGP Open 2(3):bjgpopen18X101606, doi:10.3399/bjgpopen18X101606.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Ewing G,
    2. Brundle C,
    3. Payne S,
    4. et al.
    (2013) The carer support needs assessment tool (CSNAT) for use in palliative and end-of-life care at home: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 46(3):395–405, doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2012.09.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. 38.↵
    1. European Medicines Agency
    (2016) Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 30 Oct 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-e-6-r2-guideline-good-clinical-practice-step-5_en.pdf.
  39. 39.↵
    1. Malterud K,
    2. Siersma VD,
    3. Guassora AD
    (2016) Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 26(13):1753–1760, doi:10.1177/1049732315617444.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Ritchie J,
    2. Lewis J,
    3. McNaughton Nicholls C,
    4. Ormston R
    (2014) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).
  41. 41.↵
    1. Gale NK,
    2. Heath G,
    3. Cameron E,
    4. et al.
    (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol 13(1), doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117. 117.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. May C,
    2. Montori VM,
    3. Mair FS
    (2009) We need minimally disruptive medicine. BMJ 339, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2803. b2803.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Mair FS,
    2. May CR
    (2014) Thinking about the burden of treatment. BMJ 349, doi:10.1136/bmj.g6680. g6680.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Dalal S,
    2. Khodyakov D,
    3. Srinivasan R,
    4. et al.
    (2011) ExpertLens: a system for eliciting opinions from a large pool of non-collocated experts with diverse knowledge. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(8):1426–1444, doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.021.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  45. 45.↵
    1. Khodyakov D,
    2. Hempel S,
    3. Rubenstein L,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Conducting online expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study. BMC Med Res Methodol 11(1), doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-174. 174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Smeets M,
    2. Aertgeerts B,
    3. Mullens W,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Optimising standards of care of heart failure in general practice the OSCAR-HF pilot study protocol. Acta Cardiol 74(5):371–379.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

BJGP Open
Vol. 3, Issue 4
December 2019
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
Email Article
Citation Tools
Optimising Management of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction in Primary Care (OPTIMISE-HFpEF): rationale and protocol for a multi-method study
Faye Forsyth, Jonathan Mant, Clare J Taylor, FD Richard Hobbs, Carolyn A Chew-Graham, Thomas Blakeman, Emma Sowden, Aaron Long, Muhammad Zakir Hossain, Duncan Edwards, Christi Deaton
BJGP Open 2019; 3 (4): bjgpopen19X101675. DOI: 10.3399/bjgpopen19X101675
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Keywords

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

 
 

British Journal of General Practice