Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs. Registration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Background Patient centeredness is an integral part of the quality of care. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are assumed to be an appropriate tool to assess patient-centredness. An evaluation of German-speaking PREMs is lacking. Objective To perform a systematic review and qualitative analysis of psychometric measurement qualities of German-language PREMs using for the first time a comprehensive framework of patient centredness. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, PsycInfo, CINHAL, Embase, Cochrane database (last search 9th November 2021) for studies describing generic, surgery- or cancer care-specific PREMs. All questionnaires that were developed in or translated into German were included. The content of the included PREMs was evaluated using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness covering 16 domains. Baseline data of all PREM studies were extracted by two independent reviewers. Psychometric measurement qualities of the PREMs were assessed using current COSMIN guidelines. Results After removal of duplicates 3,457 abstracts were screened, of which 3,345 were excluded. The remaining 112 articles contained 51 PREMs, of which 12 were either developed in (4 PREMs) or translated into German (8 PREMs). Eight PREMs were generic (NORPEQ, PPE-15, PEACS, HCAHPS, QPPS, DUQUE, PEQ-G, Schoenfelder et al.), 4 cancer care-specific (EORTC IN-PATSAT32, PSCC-G, Danish National Cancer Questionnaire, SCCC) and none was surgery-specific. None of the PREMs covered all domains of patient-centeredness. Overall rating of structural validity was adequate only for PEACS and HCAHPS. High ratings for internal consistency were given for NORPEQ, Schoenfelder et al., PSCC-G and the SCCC. Cross-cultural validity for translated questionnaires was adequate only for the PSCC-G, while reliability was adequately assessed only for the EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Due to a lack of measurement gold standard and minimal important change, criterion validity and measurement invariance could not be assessed for any of the PREMs. Conclusion This is the first systematic review using a comprehensive framework of patient centredness and shows that none of the included PREMs, even those translated from other languages into German, cover all aspects of patient centredness. Furthermore, all included PREMS show deficits in the results or evaluation of psychometric measurement properties. Nonetheless, based on the results, the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 and PSCC-G can be recommended for use in cancer patients in the German-language region, while the German versions of the HCAHPS, NORPEQ, PPE-15 and PEACS can be recommended as generic PREMs. Trial Registration Registration. PROSPERO CRD42021276827.

Implementation of GDMT in HFrEF remains incomplete. Prescription manners may vary based on the development of adverse effects. An HFA position paper proposed patient profiling and individualized prescription manners. This study aims to assess the eligibility for GDMT up-titration and its success in the context of clinical profiles in chronic severe HFrEF outpatients. Clinical characteristics of 900 HFrEF patients at first presentation were assessed, and GDMT up-titration limiting factors were identified by applying thresholds of mutual consent. GDMT prescription was analyzed at 6 months and 1 year. 75% of patients had no GDMT up-titration limiting factor at baseline. Significant up-titration could be achieved in all four HF drug classes, especially within the first 6 months, irrespective of GDMT up-titration limiting factors (p ≤ 0.035 for administration and dosage, all drug classes). During up-titration, there was a balanced transition between up-titration limiting factors. 35% of patients received triple therapy on target dosages with a 2.6% one-year mortality rate. Regarding the HFA profiles, 62% of patients could not be classified into a specific HFA phenotype, including most severe patients. 98% of classifiable patients belonged to only four phenotypes, while GDMT up-titration could be achieved in all of these HFA profiles (p ≤ 0.007). In this real-world study, 75% of patients with chronic severe HFrEF are eligible for GDMT up-titration towards target dosages. The clinical profile concept of the HFA might be adapted, as most classifiable patients can be up-titrated, and most severe patients are missed by the classification.

Background Recently, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for the Society of Diabetes (EASD) introduced a new cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk stratification model to aid further treatment decisions in individuals with diabetes. Our study aimed to investigate the prognostic performance of the ESC/EASD risk model in comparison to the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk model and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in an unselected cohort of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods and results A total of 1690 T2DM patients with a 10-year follow up for fatal CVD and all-cause death and a 5-year follow up for CVD and all-cause hospitalizations were analyzed. According to ESC/EASD risk criteria 25 (1.5%) patients were classified as moderate, 252 (14.9%) high, 1125 (66.6%) very high risk and 288 (17.0%) were not classifiable. Both NT-proBNP and SCORE risk model were associated with 10-year CVD and all-cause death and 5-year CVD and all-cause hospitalizations while the ESC/EASD model was only associated with 10-year all-cause death and 5-year all-cause hospitalizations. NT-proBNP and SCORE showed significantly higher C-indices than the ESC/EASD risk model for CVD death [0.80 vs. 0.53, p < 0.001; 0.64 vs. 0.53, p = 0.001] and all-cause death [0.73, 0.66 vs. 0.52, p < 0.001 for both]. The performance of SCORE improved in a subgroup without CVD aged 40–64 years compared to the unselected cohort, while NT-proBNP performance was robust across all groups. Conclusion The new introduced ESC/EASD risk stratification model performed limited compared to SCORE and single NT-proBNP assessment for predicting 10-year CVD and all-cause fatal events in individuals with T2DM.

Background High body mass index (BMI) is paradoxically associated with better outcome in patients with heart failure (HF). The effects of malnutrition on this phenomenon across the whole spectrum of HF have not yet been studied. Methods In this observational study, patients were classified by guideline diagnostic criteria to one of three heart failure subtypes: reduced (HFrEF), mildy reduced (HFmrEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Data were retrieved from the Viennese‐community healthcare provider network between 2010 and 2020. The relationship between BMI, nutritional status reflected by the prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and survival was assessed. Patients were classified by the presence (PNI < 45) or absence (PNI ≥ 45) of malnutrition. Results Of the 11 995 patients enrolled, 6916 (58%) were classified as HFpEF, 2809 (23%) HFmrEF, and 2270 HFrEF (19%). Median age was 70 years (IQR 61–77), and 67% of patients were men. During a median follow‐up time of 44 months (IQR 19–76), 3718 (31%) of patients died. After adjustment for potential confounders, BMI per IQR increase was independently associated with better survival (adj. hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91 [CI 0.86–0.97], P = 0.005), this association remained significant after additional adjustment for HF type (adj. HR: 0.92 [CI 0.86–0.98], P = 0.011). PNI was available in 10 005 patients and lowest in HFrEF patients. PNI was independently associated with improved survival (adj. HR: 0.96 [CI 0.95–0.97], P < 0.001); additional adjustment for HF type yielded similar results (adj. HR: 0.96 [CI 0.96–0.97], P < 0.001). Although obese patients experienced a 30% risk reduction, malnutrition at least doubled the risk for death with 1.8‐ to 2.5‐fold higher hazards for patients with poor nutritional status compared with normal weight well‐nourished patients. Conclusions The obesity paradox seems to be an inherent characteristic of HF regardless of phenotype and nutritional status. Yet malnutrition significantly changes trajectory of outcome with regard to BMI alone: obese patients with malnutrition have a considerably worse outcome compared with their well‐nourished counterparts, outweighing protective effects of high BMI alone. In this context, routine recommendation towards weight loss in patients with obesity and HF should generally be made with caution and focus should be shifted on nutritional status.

In patients with refractory heart failure (HF) peritoneal dialysis (PD) is associated with improved functional status and decrease in hospitalization. However, previous studies did not focus on right ventricular dysfunction as an important pathophysiologic component of cardiorenal syndrome. In a prospective cohort study PD was started in 40 patients with refractory right HF (with/without left HF). Refractoriness to conservative therapy was defined as persistent right heart congestion/ascites with intensified diuretic treatment and/or ≥2 hospitalizations within 6 months because of cardiac decompensation despite optimal medical treatment, and/or acute renal failure during intensified conservative treatment of cardiac decompensations. Patient survival was 55.0% at 1 year, 35.0% at 2 years and 27.5% at 3 years. The number of hospitalization days declined after initiation of PD for both cardiac [13 (IQR 1-53) days before vs. 1 (IQR 0-12) days after start of PD, p<0.001] and unplanned reasons [12 (IQR 3-44) days before vs. 1 (IQR 0-33) days after start of PD, p = 0.007]. Using a combined endpoint including survival time of ≥1 year and either improvement in quality of life or decline in hospitalizations we found that patients with extended ascites, higher systolic pulmonary artery pressure, more marked impairment of right ventricular function and tricuspid valve insufficiency, higher residual renal function as well as those who could perform PD without assistance have benefited most from this therapy. Patients with more pronounced backward failure, less marked residual renal functional impairment and those not depending on assistance for therapy are likely to profit most from PD.

Background/Objectives: Real-world evidence shows alarmingly suboptimal utilization of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). One of the barriers of GDMT implementation appears to be concerns about the potential development of drug-related adverse events (AEs), particularly in high-risk patients. This study aimed to evaluate whether advanced HFrEF (AHF) patients can be up-titrated safely and whether AHF predisposes individuals to the occurrence of putatively drug-related AEs. Methods: A total of 373 HFrEF patients with documented baseline, 2 months, and 12 months visits were analyzed for utilization and target dosages (TDs) of HF drugs. Successful up-titration and AEs were evaluated for different stages of HF reflected by N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (<1000 pg/mL, 1000–2000 pg/mL, >2000 pg/mL). Results: A stepwise increase in HF medications was observed for all drug classes during follow-up. At 12 months, 73%, 75%, 62%, 86%, and 45% of patients received ≥90% of TDs of beta-blockers (BBs), renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASis), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2 i), and triple-therapy, respectively. Predictors of successful up-titration in logistic regression were baseline HF drug TDs, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and potassium, but not NT-proBNP or age. The development of AEs was rare, with hyperkalemia as the most common event (34% at 12 months). AEs were comparable in all stages of HF. However, the development of hyperkalemia was more frequent in patients with higher NT-proBNP and also accounted for most cases of incomplete up-titration. Conclusions: This study suggests that with dedicated protocols and frequent visits, GDMT can be successfully implemented across all stages of HFrEF, including patients with AHF.

The transmembrane zink-metalloendopeptidase neprilysin (NEP) is implicated in cardiovascular disease but also tumor biology. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationship of circulating NEP (cNEP) levels with established cardiovascular biomarkers and its effect on overall survival in an unselected cohort of treatment-naïve cancer patients. 555 consecutive cancer patients prior anticancer therapy were enrolled prospectively. NEP levels were determined alongside routine laboratory parameters, established cardiac biomarkers, i.e. NT-proBNP, hsTnT, MR-proANP, MR-proADM, CT-proET-1 and Copeptin, and inflammatory parameters, i.e. CRP, IL-6 and SAA, in venous plasma samples. All-cause mortality was the primary endpoint. cNEP levels of 276 pg/ml (IQR: 0–5981) displayed a weak inverse correlation with age [r = −0.12, p = 0.023] and inflammatory status [r = −0.14, p = 0.007 CRP; r = −0.20, p < 0.001 IL-6 and r = −0.18, p < 0.001 SAA]. cNEP was comparable between different tumor entities and stages and not related to functional parameters of other organ systems as kidney, liver or especially the heart. Moreover, cNEP was not associated with overall survival in the total cohort [adj.HR for ln (cNEP) 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94–1.06, p = 0.887] but in myelodysplatic malignancies [adj.HR for ln (cNEP) 1.27, 95% CI: 1.01–1.61, p = 0.044]. In conclusion, cNEP lacks association with outcome but for myelodysplastic disease. cNEP shows no correlation with established cardiovascular biomarkers related to prognosis, thereby holding a limited potential as a biomarker in cardio-oncology.

Aims The progression of heart failure is presumably dependent on the individual inflammatory host response. The combination of the inflammatory markers, albumin, and C‐reactive protein, termed modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), has been derived from cancer patients and validated in multiple cohorts. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the easily available mGPS on survival of stable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results Patients with stable HFrEF undergoing routine ambulatory care between January 2011 and November 2017 have been identified from a prospective registry at the Medical University of Vienna. Comorbidities, laboratory data as well as the nutritional risk index at baseline were assessed. All‐cause mortality was defined as the primary study end point. The mGPS was calculated, and its association with heart failure severity and impact on overall survival were determined. Data were analysed for a total of 443 patients. The mGPS was 0 for 352 (80%), 1 for 76 (17%), and 2 for 14 (3%) patients, respectively. Elevation of mGPS was associated with worsening of routine laboratory parameters linked to prognosis, especially NT‐proBNP [median 1830 pg/mL (IQR 764–3455) vs. 4484 pg/mL (IQR 1565–8003) vs. 6343 pg/mL (IQR 3750–15401) for mGPS 0, 1, and 2, respectively; P < 0.001] and nutritional risk index. In the Cox regression analysis, the increase of mGPS was associated with adverse outcome in the univariate analysis [crude hazard ratio 3.00 (95% CI 2.14–4.21), P < 0.001] and after adjustment for multiple covariates as age, gender, body mass index, and glomerular filtration rate as well as heart failure severity reflected by NT‐proBNP and New York Heart Association class [adj. hazard ratio 1.87 (95% CI 1.19–2.93), P = 0.006]. Conclusions Enhanced inflammation and nutritional depletion are more common in advanced heart failure. The inflammation‐based score mGPS predicts survival in HFrEF patients independently of NT‐proBNP emphasizing the significance of the individual pro‐inflammatory response on prognosis.

Background: Inflammation-based scores are widely tested in cancer and have been evaluated in cardiovascular diseases including heart failure. Objectives: We investigated the impact of established inflammation-based scores on disease severity and survival in patients with stable heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) paralleling results to an intra-institutional cohort of treatment naïve cancer patients. Methods: HFrEF and cancer patients were prospectively enrolled. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-ratio (NLR), the monocyte-to-lymphocyte-ratio (MLR), the platelet-to-lymphocyte-ratio (PLR), and the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) at index day were calculated. Association of scores with disease severity and impact on overall survival was determined. Interaction analysis was performed for the different populations. Results: Between 2011 and 2017, a total of 818 patients (443 HFrEF and 375 cancer patients) were enrolled. In HFrEF, there was a strong association between all scores and disease severity reflected by NT-proBNP and NYHA class ( p ≤ 0.001 for all). In oncologic patients, association with tumor stage was significant for the PNI only ( p = 0.035). In both disease entities, all scores were associated with all-cause mortality ( p ≤ 0.014 for all scores). Kaplan–Meier analysis confirmed the discriminatory power of all scores in the HFrEF and the oncologic study population, respectively (log-rank p ≤ 0.026 for all scores). A significant interaction with disease (HFrEF vs. cancer) was observed for PNI ( p interaction = 0.013) or PLR ( p interaction = 0.005), respectively, with higher increase in risk per inflammatory score increment for HFrEF. Conclusion: In crude models, the inflammatory scores NLR, MLR, PLR, and PNI are associated with severity of disease in HFrEF and with survival in HFrEF similarly to cancer patients. For PNI and PLR, the association with increase in risk per increment was even stronger in HFrEF than in malignant disease.