Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Heart failure (HF) is the commonest cause of hospitalization in older adults. Compared to routine hospitalization (RH), hospital at home (HaH)—substitutive hospital-level care in the patient’s home—improves outcomes and reduces costs in patients with general medical conditions. The efficacy of HaH in HF is unknown.

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, for publications from January 1990 to October 2014. We included prospective studies comparing substitutive models of hospitalization to RH in HF. At least 2 reviewers independently selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed quality. We meta-analyzed results from 3 RCTs (n = 203) and narratively synthesized results from 3 observational studies (n = 329). Study quality was modest. In RCTs, HaH increased time to first readmission (mean difference (MD) 14.13 days [95% CI 10.36 to 17.91]), and improved health-related quality of life (HrQOL) at both, 6 months (standardized MD (SMD) -0.31 [-0.45 to -0.18]) and 12 months (SMD -0.17 [-0.31 to -0.02]). In RCTs, HaH demonstrated a trend to decreased readmissions (risk ratio (RR) 0.68 [0.42 to 1.09]), and had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94 [0.67 to 1.32]). HaH decreased costs of index hospitalization in all RCTs. HaH reduced readmissions and emergency department visits per patient in all 3 observational studies.

Conclusions

In the context of a limited number of modest-quality studies, HaH appears to increase time to readmission, reduce index costs, and improve HrQOL among patients requiring hospital-level care for HF. Larger RCTs are necessary to assess the effect of HaH on readmissions, mortality, and long-term costs.     

Death Following Inhalation of Mercury Vapor at Home.

Confusion exists among physicians over the legal requirements and appropriate prescribing of narcotics to addicted or habitual users of narcotics. The result has often been either (1) the deprivation of appropriate treatment for patients who desire detoxification or adequate pain relief, or (2) illegal prescribing by physicians. Because most narcotics are potent and dangerous substances, certain legal restrictions are necessary to protect the general public. State-approved programs have been established to prescribe methadone and propoxyphene napsylate for addiction treatment. Current laws and regulations in California permit every practicing physician to provide effective and safe treatment for addiction and pain relief.     

Acute Myocardial Infarction: Home and Hospital Treatment

This is a preliminary report of a co-operative study of 1,203 episodes of acute myocardial infarction in men under 70 years in four centres in the south west of England. The mortality at 28 days was 15%. A comparison is made between home care by the family doctor and hospital treatment initially in an intensive care unit: 343 cases were allocated at random. The randomized groups do not differ significantly in composition with respect to age; past history of angina, infarction, or hypertension; or hypotension when first examined. The mortality rates of the random groups are similar for home and hospital treatment. The group sent electively to hospital contained a higher proportion of initially hypotensive patients whose prognosis was bad wherever treated; those who were not hypotensive fared rather worse in hospital.For some patients with acute myocardial infarction seen by their general practitioner home care is ethically justified, and the need for general admission to hospital should be reconsidered.