Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38065589›Full record

ArticleOpen heart2023

Heart failure management at home: a non-randomised prospective case-controlled trial (HeMan at Home).

Justin Helberg, Daniel Bensimhon, Vasili Katsadouros, Michelle Schmerge, Heather Smith, Kelly Peck, Kim Williams, William Winfrey, Ankit Nanavati, Jon Knapp and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in Open heart, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Justin HelbergInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA Justin.t.helberg@gmail.com.
Daniel BensimhonCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Vasili KatsadourosInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-5401-5731
Michelle SchmergeRemote Health Services, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Heather SmithRemote Health Services, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Kelly PeckTriad Healthcare Network, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Kim WilliamsRemote Health Services, PLLC, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
William WinfreyInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Ankit NanavatiCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Jon KnappCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Monica SchmidtCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Lisa CurranCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Megan McCarthyCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Mark SawulskiCone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Lawrence HarbrechtInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Idalys SantosInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Ellie MasoudiInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Nischal NarendraInternal Medicine Teaching Service, Cone Health, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
Cone Health · USTriad National Security (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesHeart failure (HF) is a growing clinical and economic burden for patients and health systems. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to avoidance and delay in care, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality among many patients with HF. The increasing burden of HF during the COVID-19 pandemic led us to evaluate the quality and safety of the Hospital at Home (HAH) for patients presenting to their community providers or emergency department (ED) with symptoms of acute on chronic HF (CHF) requiring admission. DESIGN/OUTCOMES: A non-randomised prospective case-controlled of patients enrolled in the HAH versus admission to the hospital (usual care, UC). Primary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), adverse events, discharge disposition and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission rates, 30-day ED usage and ED dwell time.

resultsSixty patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the study. Of the 60 patients, 40 were in the HAH and 20 were in the UC group. Primary outcomes demonstrated that HAH patients had slightly longer LOS (6.3 days vs 4.7 days); however, fewer adverse events (12.5% vs 35%) compared with the UC group. Those enrolled in the HAH programme were less likely to be discharged with postacute services (skilled nursing facility or home health). HAH was associated with increased patient satisfaction compared with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) score in North Carolina. Secondary outcomes of 30-day readmission and ED usage were similar between HAH and UC.

conclusionsThe HAH pilot programme was shown to be a safe and effective alternative to hospitalisation for the appropriately selected patient presenting with acute on CHF.

Indexed as

COVID-19Heart FailureCase-Control StudiesHospitalizationHumansLength of StayPandemicsProspective StudiesHealth Care Economics and OrganizationsHeart FailureOutcome Assessment, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID38065589
PMCPMC10711907
OpenAlexW4389485523

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.