Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Cardiology and Therapy 2/2024

Open Access 07.02.2024 | Original Research

Real-World Heart Failure Burden in Thai Patients

verfasst von: Panyapat Jiampo, Thidaporn Tangkittikasem, Thanita Boonyapiphat, Vichai Senthong, Artit Torpongpun

Erschienen in: Cardiology and Therapy | Ausgabe 2/2024

Abstract

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of hospitalization worldwide. In Thailand, data on HF burden remains limited. This study aimed to describe comprehensive evidence detailing the HF prevalence, hospital admission rates, in-hospital mortality, and overall mortality rates at the hospital level.

Method

All eligible adult patients’ medical records from 2018 and 2019 were analyzed retrospectively at five hospitals in different regions. The patients were diagnosed with HF, as indicated by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code I50. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the hospital burden as well as patients’ clinical and outcome data.

Results

A total of 7384 patients with HF were identified from five tertiary hospitals. Around half of the patients were male. The mean age was 67 years, and the main health insurance scheme was the Universal Coverage Scheme. The prevalence of HF was 0.1% in 2018 and 0.2% in 2019. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was the most common type of HF in both visits, followed by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF). The proportion of HF hospitalizations was 1.2% in 2018 and 1.5% in 2019. The proportion of HF rehospitalizations versus hospitalizations in patients with HF was 22.7% in 2018 and 23.9% in 2019. The risk of rehospitalization was highest at 180 days after hospital discharge (87.8%). Among the patients with HF, the proportion of all-cause mortality was 9.1% in 2018 and 8.0% in 2019. Most of the deaths occurred within 30 days after hospitalization.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that the burden of HF in terms of hospitalization and in-hospital mortality was notably high when compared to similar studies conducted in Thailand and other countries.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40119-024-00355-8.
Prior Presentation: Data from this manuscript was presented at ESC Asia, Singapore on December 1, 2022, and ACC Asia, Manila Philippines on September 30, 2023.
Key Summary Points
There is limited data on population-based studies that have investigated the prevalence of heart failure (HF), hospital admission rates, in-hospital mortality, and overall mortality rates in Thailand.
Understanding the healthcare burden caused by HF is important to minimizing and improving patients care, particularly given Thailand’s aging population.
Our results revealed that the burden of HF in terms of hospitalization and in-hospital mortality was much higher than the previous studies.
There is still an urgent need for improved care of patients with HF to reduce the total burden of HF in Thailand.

Introduction

Heart failure (HF) presents a significant global public health challenge [1], affecting a substantial number of individuals worldwide. According to current estimates, around 26 million people worldwide have been diagnosed with HF [2]. However, the prevalence varies across different regions. In the previous population-based studies, Malaysia had the highest prevalence of HF among Asian nations (6.7%), followed by Singapore (4.5%), China (1.3%), and Japan (1%) [3]. Surprisingly, no population-based study has investigated the prevalence of HF in Thailand. Nevertheless, there is a belief that the burden of HF in Thailand is steadily on the rise. This escalation is attributed to HF serving as the ultimate progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is a leading cause of mortality in Thailand [4]. Moreover, the frequency of HF surges in tandem with advancing age, a trend that is poised to magnify within nations marked by aging populations, including Thailand [5].
HF is one of the leading causes of hospital admissions worldwide. In developed countries, 1–4% of all hospital admissions are accounted for by HF [6], while the prevalence of HF in hospitalized patients ranged from 3.4% to 6.7% in Asian countries [7]. In addition, approximately 17–45% of these hospitalized patients do not survive beyond 1 year following their admission, with the majority succumbing within 5 years [810]. In Thailand, comprehensive evidence detailing the HF prevalence, hospital admission rates, in-hospital mortality, and overall mortality rates remains limited. Findings from the first HF registry in Thailand, the Thai Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Registry (Thai ADHERE), disclosed an in-hospital mortality rate of 5.5% for patients with HF in the period from 2006 to 2007 [11]. Interestingly, there was a subsequent decline in in-hospital mortality, from 4.4% in 2008 to 3.8% in 2013 [12]. The increased survival rate among patients with HF might be due to advances in innovative medicines and improved patient management systems. However, the rates of 1-year rehospitalization and mortality rate of patients with HF in Thailand remained notably elevated, standing at 34% and 28.5%, respectively [12].
Because of the increased frequency of hospitalizations and the adverse outcomes after hospitalization, the care of patients with HF imposes a significant economic burden. This burden is reflected in healthcare expenditures, which constitute approximately 1–3% of the total healthcare spending in North America [13] and Western Europe [14]. This economic burden primarily arises from the frequency and duration of hospital stays among patients with HF. Understanding the healthcare load caused by HF is crucial to minimizing and improving the consequences of this life-threatening condition, particularly given Thailand’s aging population. Thus, we conducted a hospital-based retrospective cohort study to assess the burden of HF in Thailand. This study examined the prevalence of HF in patients who visited the hospital (including outpatient and inpatient visits) and the frequency of HF hospitalizations. All-cause and CVD mortality rates among patients with HF, as well as the utilization of hospital resources and associated costs directly related to HF cases, were also estimated.

Methods

Study Settings and Participants

This study was a retrospective cohort study conducted in the five tertiary hospitals (Lampang, Chonburi, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Udonthani, and Queen Sirikit Heart Center of the Northeast, Khon Kaen University) during 2018–2019. These hospitals are located in different geographic areas with varying service levels, including three advanced-level hospitals in the Ministry of Public Health (Lampang, Chonburi, and Udonthani), one medical school hospital (Queen Sirikit Heart Center of the Northeast), and one military hospital (Bhumibol Adulyadej). The study’s participants were adult patients with the diagnosis of HF.
The study’s participants were identified by the ICD-10 codes I50 (all heart failure) and I50.1 (left ventricular heart failure) from the study’s hospital databases. Both newly diagnosed and existing patients with HF were included in this study if their ages were 18–99 years old and they had at least two hospital visits during 2018–2019. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study’s protocol was approved by the central research ethics committee (CREC) (COA-CREC029/2022) and the local institutional review board (IRB) of each participating institution. A list of IRBs can be found in the supplementary material. As a result of the retrospective nature of the study, informed consent was exempted by the IRB.

Data Collection

Demographic data of participants, including age, sex, and health reimbursement schemes, as well as the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of the patients with HF, were collected by reviewing the medical records. Costs and workload of hospital staff due to HF hospitalization were also gathered. The workload of hospital staff was collected from cardiologists, non-cardiologists, and nurses who took care of patients with HF in an inpatient setting. Working hours were calculated from the duration in minutes that each staff member spent caring for patients with HF per day as reported by hospital staff. The total costs of outpatient (OPD), inpatient (IPD), and emergency department (ED) visits of patients with HF were retrieved from the hospital records. The total cost included medication, laboratory, imaging, device, and surgical costs.

Types of Heart Failure

HF was classified into three main subtypes: (1) heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LVEF less than 40%; (2) heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF), LVEF between 40% and 50%; and (3) heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), LVEF ≥ 50% based on the Thai HF guideline 2019 in all endpoints. The type of HF may be confirmed via hospital data (which includes results of echocardiograms, for example) where available.

Outcomes of Interest

The primary outcome of this study was the burden of HF, including hospital visits, unscheduled hospital visits, hospitalization, and HF rehospitalization. A hospital visit was defined as a hospital visit at either OPD, IPD, or ED that had a principal or secondary diagnosis of HF, while an unscheduled hospital visit was defined as an unscheduled visit at OPD or ED. Hospitalization was defined as an inpatient admission to an acute facility for HF, such as a hospital ward, intensive care unit (ICU), critical care unit (CCU), or intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU). Rehospitalization was defined as an inpatient admission to an acute facility for HF within 30, 60, and 180 days after discharge from a previous hospitalization. Data about hospital visits, unscheduled visits, hospitalization, and rehospitalization were retrieved from the study’s hospital databases.
The secondary outcomes were the prevalence of HF, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality in patients with HF. All-cause mortality was defined as the death from any cause, while CV mortality was defined as the death related to cardiovascular events. All-cause and CV mortality in the participants were verified by retrieving the data from the study’s hospital databases.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous data was presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) if the data was normally distributed; otherwise, median and range were applied instead. Categorical data was presented as frequency and percentage (%).
The prevalence of HF was calculated by dividing the total number of identified patients with HF by the total number of patients in the study’s hospitals. Proportions of hospital visits were estimated by dividing the number of hospital visits of patients with HF by the number of total hospital visits from all patients, while proportions of hospitalizations were calculated by dividing the number of hospitalizations from all causes in patients with HF by the total number of hospitalizations from all patients in the hospitals.
All-cause mortality and CV mortality rates were calculated by dividing the number of deaths from any causes in identified patients with HF by the number of deaths from any causes in all patients and by dividing the number of deaths from cardiovascular events in patients with HF by the number of deaths in all patients, respectively.
The proportion of unscheduled OPD and ED visits of patients with HF was estimated by dividing the number of unscheduled visits from HF by the number of total hospital visits in identified patients with HF. The proportion of HF rehospitalization was calculated by dividing the number of HF rehospitalizations by the number of HF hospitalizations among identified patients with HF.
Rates of HF rehospitalization at 30, 60, and 180 days were calculated by dividing the number of rehospitalizations due to HF at 30, 60, and 180 days after hospital discharge by the total HF rehospitalizations of identified patients with HF.
The 95% confidence intervals (CI) of all proportions and rates were also estimated. All analyses were performed by the SAS program version 9.4.

Results

A total of 7384 patients with HF were identified from five tertiary hospitals: 22.3% Lampang, 22.2% Chonburi, 24.4% Bhumibol Adulyadej, 22.9% Udonthani, and 8.3% Queen Sirikit Heart Center of the Northeast. Of these patients, 3180 and 4697 patients were identified from 2,399,555 patient visits in 2018 and 2,487,960 patient visits in 2019. Thus, the prevalence of HF in this study was 0.1% in 2018 and 0.2% in 2019.
The characteristics of the patients with HF were comparable between patients identified from visits in 2018 and visits in 2019, as presented in Table 1. Around half of patients with HF were male. The mean age was 67 years, and the main health insurance scheme was the Universal Coverage Scheme (UHC). Only 1802 and 2689 patients had LVEF data from visits in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The mean LVEF (SD) for patients reported in 2018 and 2019 was 46.5% (18.3) and 45.9% (18.2), respectively.
Table 1
Characteristics of study’s participants
Characteristics
Visit in 2018
(N = 3180)
Visit in 2019
(N = 4697)
Sex, n (%)
 Male
1684 (53.0%)
2412 (51.4%)
 Female
1496 (47.0%)
2285 (48.7%)
Age (years)
 Mean (SD)
66.7 (14.9)
67.5 (14.8)
 Min–max
18–99
18–99
Health insurance scheme, n (%)
 Universal Coverage Scheme (UCS)
2247 (70.7%)
3347 (71.3%)
 Social Security Scheme (SSS)
137 (4.3%)
160 (3.4%)
 Civil Servant Medical Benefit Scheme (CSMBS)
732 (23.0%)
1055 (22.5%)
 Private insurance or self-pay
64 (2.0%)
135 (2.9%)
%LVEF*
 Mean (SD)
46.5 (18.3)
45.9 (18.2)
 Min–max
5–89
2–97
*Only 1802 patients from visits in 2018 and 2689 patients from visits in 2019 had LVEF data

Types of Heart Failure

The proportion of each subtype of HF was comparable between visits in 2018 and 2019 (Table 2). HFpEF was the most common type of patient with HF (44.3%), followed by HFrEF and HFmrEF. HFrEF and HFmrEF were more commonly found in men (64.7% and 52.0% in 2018, and 62.3% and 54.6% in 2019) than women, while HFpEF was more common in women (55.9% and 56.7% in 2018 and 2019, respectively). The mean age of patients with HF was highest in HFpEF, followed by HFmrEF and HFrEF subtypes (Table 2).
Table 2
Proportion and characteristics of each type of HF classified by %LVEF
Status
LVEF
HFrEF n (%)
HFmrEF n (%)
HFpEF n (%)
All patients
 Visits in 2018 (n = 1802)
725 (40.2%)
279 (15.5%)
798 (44.3%)
 Visits in 2019 (n = 2689)
1138 (42.3%)
374 (13.9%)
1177 (43.8%)
Sex, n (%)
 Visits in 2018
  Male
469 (64.7%)
145 (52.0%)
352 (44.1%)
  Female
256 (35.3%)
134 (48.0%)
446 (55.9%)
 Visits in 2019
  Male
709 (62.3%)
204 (54.6%)
510 (43.3%)
  Female
429 (37.7%)
170 (45.5%)
667 (56.7%)
Age (years), mean (SD)
 Visits in 2018
62.4 (15.0)
66.0 (14.5)
67.3 (14.9)
 Visits in 2019
64.1 (14.6)
67.4 (12.9)
68.0 (14.5)
The estimated prevalence of HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF was 0.1%, 0.02%, and 0.1% in 2018 and 0.1%, 0.04%, and 0.1% in 2019, respectively.

Burden of Heart Failure

Hospital Visits

The number of hospital visits for patients with HF was 6811 in 2018 and 10,564 in 2019, with a median of 1 visit per year (range 1–18) for 2018 and 1 visit per year (range 1–20) for 2019. The proportion of hospital visits from patients with HF among the total number of hospital visits from all patients was 0.1% in 2018 and 0.2% in 2019. The median number of hospital visits annually among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF was 2, 1, and 1 in 2018 and 2, 2, and 1 in 2019, respectively. In 2018, the number of visits was highest in IPD (47.0%), followed by OPD (45.6%) and ED (7.5%), while in 2019, it was highest in OPD (52.4%), followed by IPD (41.7%) and ED (5.9%).

Hospitalization

The proportions of hospitalizations from patients with HF among the total number of hospitalizations from all patients were 1.2% in 2018 and 1.5% in 2019 (Table 3). The proportion of hospitalization across three types of HF was greatest in patients with HFpEF (0.3%) for visits in 2018 and in patients with HFrEF (0.5%) for visits in 2019. For both years, patients with HFmrEF had the lowest proportion of HF hospitalizations (Table 3).
Table 3
Proportion of hospitalization in patients with HF
 
Number of patients
Total number of hospitalizations from all patients in the hospitals
Number of HF hospitalizations from patients with HF
Proportion of hospitalization (%)
95% CI
Visits in 2018
 All patients
2154
241,351
2786
1.2
1.11, 1.20
 All patients with LVEF
1372
 
1777
0.7
0.70, 0.77
  HFrEF (EF < 40%)
560
 
739
0.3
0.28, 0.33
  HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
213
 
265
0.1
0.10, 0.12
  HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
599
 
773
0.32
0.30, 0.34
Visits in 2019
 All patients
2924
243,376
3843
1.58
1.53, 1.63
 All patients with LVEF
1848
 
2540
1.04
1.00, 1.08
  HFrEF (EF < 40%)
818
 
1152
0.47
0.45, 0.50
  HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
240
 
335
0.14
0.12, 0.15
  HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
790
 
1053
0.43
0.41, 0.46
Among IPD visits, most patients with HF were admitted to the hospital ward (92.4% in 2018 and 92.5% in 2019); see Table 4. The reason for hospital admission was mostly related to HF symptoms (87.1% in 2018 and 87.2% in 2019). The in-hospital mortality in patients with HF was 11.4% in 2018 and 10.8% in 2019, with cardiovascular events being the most common cause of death (88.0% in 2018 and 83.5% in 2019). The risk of in-hospital death was highest in patients with HFrEF (9.1% in 2018 and 9.2% in 2019).
Table 4
Number of visits at inpatient and emergency departments in patients with HF
 
2018
2019
All HF
HFrEF
HFmrEF
HFpEF
All HF
HFrEF
HFmrEF
HFpEF
Inpatient department (IPD)
 Number of all IPD visits
3199
(N = 2405)
830
(N = 607)
314
(N = 240)
884
(N = 661)
4407
(N = 3275)
1318
(N = 911)
398
(N = 274)
1201
(N = 881)
 Number of CCU visits
141
(4.4%)
52
(6.3%)
24
(7.6%)
41
(4.6%)
221
(5.0%)
101
(7.7%)
34
(8.5%)
49
(4.1%)
 Number of ICU visits
162
(5.1%)
36
(4.3%)
22
(7.0%)
52
(5.9%)
176
(4.0%)
52
(4.0%)
13
(3.3%)
53
(4.4%)
Number of ICCU visits
222
(7.0%)
79
(9.5%)
33
(10.5%)
49
(5.5%)
193
(4.4%)
73
(5.5%)
24
(6.0%)
54
(4.5%)
 Number of ward visits
2956 (92.4%)
734
(88.4%)
272
(86.6%)
835
(94.5%)
4075
(92.5%)
1178
(89.4%)
364
(91.5%)
1125
(93.7%)
Reasons
 Hospitalization from HF
2786 (87.1%)
739
(89.0%)
265
(84.4%)
773
(87.4%)
3843
(87.2%)
1152
(87.4%)
335
(84.2%)
1053
(87.7%)
 Hospitalization from other causes
413
(12.9%)
91
(11.0%)
49
(15.6%)
111
(12.6%)
564
(12.8%)
166
(12.6%)
63
(15.8%)
148
(12.3%)
Outcome
 Discharge
2925 (91.4%)
775
(93.4%)
298
(94.9%)
844
(95.5%)
4055
(92.0%)
1234
(93.6%)
379
(95.2%)
1133
(94.3%)
 Death*
274
(11.4%)
55
(9.1%)
16
(6.7%)
40
(6.1%)
352
(10.8%)
84
(9.2%)
19
(6.9%)
68
(7.7%)
 CV death*
241
(88.0%)
46
(83.6%)
15
(93.8%)
35
(87.5%)
294
(83.5%)
75
(89.3%)
14
(73.7%)
56
(82.4%)
 Other death*
33
(12.0%)
9
(16.4%)
1
(6.3%)
5
(12.5%)
58
(16.5%)
9
(10.7%)
5
(26.3%)
12
(17.7%)
ED visits
 Number of ED visits
508
(N = 405)
106
(N = 77)
33
(N = 26)
109
(N = 79)
621
(N = 493)
109
(N = 82)
26
(N = 23)
100
(N = 80)
Outcome
 Discharge
493
(97.1%)
106
(100.0%)
33
(100.0%)
106
(97.3%)
599
(96.5%)
104
(95.4%)
25
(96.2%)
98
(98.0%)
 Death
15
(3.7%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
3
(3.8%)
22
(4.5%)
5
(6.1%)
1
(4.4%)
2
(2.5%)
 CV death
14
(93.3%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
3
(100.0%)
17
(77.3%)
4
(80.0%)
1
(100.0%)
2
(100.0%)
 Other death
1
(6.7%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
5
(22.7%)
1
(20.0%)
0
(0.0%)
0
(0.0%)
*Number of patients with HF admitted to the hospital
Number of patients with HF admitted to emergency department (N = 493 from visits in 2019)
Among patients with HF who visited the ED, around 4% of them died when visiting the ED, with cardiovascular events being the most common cause of death (93.3% in 2018 and 77.3% in 2019).

Rehospitalization and Unscheduled Visits

Among patients with HF who were admitted to the hospital, around one-fourth of them were readmitted. The proportion of HF rehospitalizations among the number of patients hospitalized with HF was 22.7% in 2018 and 23.9% in 2019 (Table 5). The proportion of rehospitalization was highest in patients with HFrEF for both years.
Table 5
Proportion of rehospitalization from patients with HF who were admitted to the hospital and proportion of unscheduled visits in patients with HF
 
Number of HF hospitalization from identified patients with HF
Number of HF rehospitalization
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
Visits in 2018
 All patients
2786
632
22.7
21.13, 24.24
 All patients with LVEF
1777
405
22.8
20.84, 24.74
  HFrEF (EF < 40%)
739
179
24.2
21.13, 27.31
  HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
265
52
19.6
14.84, 24.40
  HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
773
174
22.5
19.57, 25.45
Visits in 2019
 All patients
3843
919
23.9
22.56, 25.26
 All patients with LVEF
2540
692
27.2
25.51, 28.98
  HFrEF (EF < 40%)
1152
334
29.0
26.37, 31.61
  HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
335
95
28.4
23.53, 33.18
  HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
1053
263
25.0
22.36, 27.59
 
Number of total HF rehospitalization from identified patients with HF
Number of HF rehospitalization
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
Rehospitalization at 30 days
 Visits in 2018
632
189
29.9
26.34, 33.47
 Visits in 2019
919
286
31.1
28.13, 34.11
Rehospitalization at 60 days
 Visits in 2018
632
335
53.0
49.12, 56.90
 Visits in 2019
919
466
50.7
47.47, 53.94
Rehospitalization at 180 days
 Visits in 2018
632
555
87.8
85.27, 90.37
 Visits in 2019
405
364
89.9
86.94, 92.81
 
Number of total hospital visits from identified patients with HF
Number of unscheduled visits at OPD and ED from patients with HF
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
 Visits in 2018
6811
682
10.0
9.30, 10.73
 Visits in 2019
10,564
949
9.0
8.44, 9.53
The risk of rehospitalization was highest at 180 days after hospital discharge. The proportions of HF rehospitalization at 30, 60, and 180 days were 29.9%, 53.0%, and 87.8% in 2018 and 31.1%, 50.7%, and 89.9% in 2019, respectively.
For the unscheduled visits at OPD and ED, the proportion of unscheduled visits by patients with HF was 10.0% in 2018 and 9.0% in 2019 (Table 5). The proportion of unscheduled visits was highest in patients with HFrEF in 2018 (9.4%), while the proportion was highest in patients with HFpEF in 2019 (6.6%).

All-Cause and CV Mortality

The proportion of all-cause deaths in patients with HF among all patients in the hospitals was 3.3% in 2018 and 4.2% in 2019 (Table 6). Among identified patients with HF, the proportion of all-cause mortality was 9.1% in 2018 and 8.0% in 2019. Most of the deaths occurred within 30 days after hospitalization. The proportion of all-cause mortality was highest in patients with HFrEF in both years.
Table 6
Proportion of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF
 
Number of deaths in all patients in the hospitals
Number of all cause deaths from identified patients with HF
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
All-cause mortality
 Visits in 2018
  All patients
8623
288
3.3
2.96, 3.72
  All patients with LVEF
 
114
1.3
1.08, 1.56
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
 
55
0.6
0.47, 0.81
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
 
16
0.2
0.09, 0.28
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
 
43
0.5
0.35, 0.65
 Visits in 2019
  All patients
8967
374
4.2
3.76, 4.58
  All patients with LVEF
 
179
2.0
1.71, 2.29
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
 
89
0.9
0.79, 1.20
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
 
20
0.2
0.13, 0.32
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
 
70
0.8
0.60, 0.96
 
Number of identified patients with HF
Number of all cause deaths from identified patients with HF
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
 Visits in 2018
  All patients
3180
288
9.1
8.06, 10.05
  All patients with LVEF
1802
114
6.3
5.20, 7.45
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
725
55
7.6
5.66, 9.51
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
279
16
5.7
3.01, 8.46
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
798
43
5.4
3.82, 6.96
 Visits in 2019
  All patients
4697
374
8.0
7.19, 8.74
  All patients with LVEF
2689
179
6.7
5.71, 7.60
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
1138
89
7.8
6.26, 9.38
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
374
20
5.4
3.07, 7.63
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
1177
70
6.0
4.60, 7.30
 
Number of deaths in all patients in the hospitals
Number of CV deaths from identified patients with HF
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
Cardiovascular mortality
 Visits in 2018
  All patients
8623
254
3.0
2.59, 3.30
  All patients with LVEF
 
99
1.2
0.92, 1.37
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
 
46
0.5
0.38, 0.69
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
 
15
0.2
0.09, 0.26
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
 
38
0.4
0.30, 0.58
 Visits in 2019
  All patients
8967
311
3.5
3.09, 3.85
  All patients with LVEF
 
152
1.7
1.43, 1.96
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
 
79
0.9
0.69, 1.07
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
 
15
0.2
0.08, 0.25
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
 
58
0.7
0.48, 0.81
 
Number of identified patients with HF
Number of CV deaths from identified patients with HF
Proportion (%)
95% Confidence interval
 Visits in 2018
  All patients
3180
254
8.0
7.05, 8.93
  All patients with LVEF
1802
99
5.5
4.44, 6.55
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
725
46
6.4
4.57, 8.12
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
279
15
5.4
2.73, 8.02
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
798
38
4.8
3.28, 6.24
 Visits in 2019
  All patients
4697
311
6.6
5.91, 7.33
  All patients with LVEF
2689
152
5.7
4.78, 6.53
   HFrEF (EF < 40%)
1138
79
6.9
5.47, 8.42
   HFmrEF (EF 40–49%)
374
15
4.0
2.02, 6.00
   HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%)
1177
58
4.9
3.69, 6.16
The proportion of CV deaths among all patients was 3.0% in 2018 and increased to 3.5% in 2019. In comparison, the rate of CV-related mortality among identified patients with HF was 8.0% in 2018 and 6.6% in 2019. The proportion of CV deaths was highest in patients with HFrEF in both years. While the proportion of non-CV-related mortality was greater in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF than in patients with HFrEF.

Cost of Heart Failure Utilization

The median (IQR) cost of OPD visits for patients with HF was 55 (101) USD in 2018 and 49 (86) USD in 2019. The total cost of an IPD visit was 511 (1,053) USD in 2018 and 515 (908) USD in 2019. The median total cost of an ED visit was 103 (109) USD in 2018 and 108 (107) USD in 2019. The median cost of OPD visits among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF was greatest in HFmrEF, HFrEF, and HFpEF, respectively, following a similar pattern in the IPD setting, but was somewhat different in the ED visits, where HFpEF was reported to have the highest cost.

Discussion

In this study, we observed a prevalence of patients with HF of 0.1% in 2018 and 0.2% in 2019. These findings were lower than the prevalence reported in a previous study conducted in Thailand during 2006 and 2007 (0.4%), and the prevalence of HF in Germany, Norway, and the USA was reported as 3.9%, 2.4%, and 3.0%, respectively [15]. The lower prevalence of HF in our study might be attributed to advances in the management of conditions such as coronary heart disease and valvular heart disease, both of which can ultimately lead to the development of HF. However, the higher prevalence of HF reported in high-income countries may be attributed to their more robust healthcare systems, which offer better access to medical care when compared to Thailand.
According to the subtypes of HF, we reported that around 40% of patients with HF had HFrEF. This result contrasted with the findings of the ASAIN-HF study, which included patients from 11 Asian countries and found that 81% of patients with HF had HFrEF [16]. However, studies in Japan [17] and China [18] found HFrEF rates of 36% and 40%, respectively, which were close to our findings. The prevalence of HF subtypes in our analysis may have been underestimated since only 57% of total patients obtained echo reports.
In our research, the hospitalization rate for patients with HF was around 1.5%, which was much higher than the hospitalization rate reported in a previous study done in Thailand (0.1%–0.2%), which examined data from inpatient medical cost claims from 2008 to 2013, comprising beneficiaries of three main public health security schemes, with the goal of representing the overall community hospitalization rate [12]. In contrast, our findings were based on a hospital setting. Furthermore, the observed hospitalization rate was greater than in the Japan study, which was done in six general hospitals during 2003 and 2012; the prevalence rate of HF-related hospitalization varied from 181 to 238 per 100,000 person-years [19].
In terms of hospitalization outcomes, around 30% of patients who were first admitted to the hospital were readmitted within 30 days after their discharge. This rehospitalization rate was higher than the 13.7% reported in the Thai HF Snapshot Study, which was done across five Thai universities and tertiary hospitals [20]. Moreover, our study showed a higher in-hospital mortality rate than other studies (11%). This was in contrast to the previous retrospective study’s in-hospital mortality rate of 4% [12] and the Thai Acute Decompensated Heart Failure Registry’s in-hospital mortality rate of 5% [11]. The disparity in in-hospital mortality rates between our study and previous investigations might be related to the differences in study settings. The previous research relied on healthcare expenditure claims data from three major public health security systems covering the entire Thai population, while our analysis included data from tertiary hospitals. Furthermore, the patients with HF in our research may have had more severe conditions than those in the prior study, since increasing disease severity is frequently associated with a higher risk of mortality. When compared to studies done in South Korea (6.6%) [21] and China (4.1%), our research found a greater in-hospital mortality rate [22].
The all-cause mortality rate for patients with HF was 9.1% in 2018 and slightly decreased to 8.0% in 2019. These numbers contrast with the findings of a previous study done in Thailand, which found that 1-year mortality rates for patients with HF varied from 31.8% in 2008 to 28.5% in 2013 [12]. Similarly, our findings are consistent with those of the ASIAN-HF registry, which found a 1-year all-cause mortality rate of 9.6% among symptomatic patients with HF [16]. The Korean Heart Registry also found a 1-year mortality rate of 9.2% among patients with HFrEF [21]. The significant reduction in observed mortality rates might be related to advances in HF management in Thailand. Furthermore, this study found that the risk of death was highest among patients with HFrEF. The discovery is consistent with findings from other research done not just in Asian countries [23], but also in Western countries [24], highlighting the consistent nature of this trend across multiple geographic locations.

Strengths and Limitations

This was the first study in Thailand to assess the prevalence of HF in a hospital setting. It included data from five tertiary hospitals located across nearly all regions of Thailand. Consequently, the results of our study may be generalized to other patients with HF in Thailand who sought care at hospitals of a similar caliber. Additionally, our study offers a holistic view of the HF burden in Thailand, covering various dimensions of the condition’s impact.
However, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations in our study. Firstly, the hospitals included in our study were predominantly regional and university hospitals, which may introduce a potential bias known as referral bias. This means that our study participants might have had more severe disease profiles. Secondly, our study employed a retrospective study design, which collected data from medical records and hospital databases, resulting in some instances of missing information. For example, LVEF data was available for only 57% of the participants, and we were unable to gather data on certain crucial factors that could impact the outcomes of patients with HF. Thirdly, our identification of HF cases relied solely on the ICD-10 coding system. This method may have introduced a misclassification bias, potentially leading to inaccuracies in the classification of HF cases. Fourthly, additional patient characteristics and demographic data, such as comorbidities and pharmaceutical history, were not collected in this study. Furthermore, the p values for comparisons of the study data between 2018 and 2019 are not shown, suggesting that further research should be undertaken using these data. Lastly, our study did not assess long-term outcomes for patients with HF. Therefore, there is a need for a prospective cohort study with a meticulously designed data collection process and long-term patient follow-up. Such a study is essential to accurately estimating the impact and burden of HF, both in the short and long term.

Conclusion

Our study found that the burden of HF in terms of hospitalization and in-hospital mortality was notably high when compared to similar studies conducted in Thailand and other countries. Furthermore, despite a slight decrease in mortality rates over time, patients with HF still faced a substantial risk of mortality. Consequently, there is a pressing need for enhanced treatment and care for patients with HF in both inpatient and outpatient settings to mitigate the overall burden of HF in Thailand.

Declarations

Conflict of Interest

Panyapat Jiampo, Thidaporn Tangkittikasem, Thanita Boonyapiphat, Vichai Senthong, and Artit Torpongpun have nothing to disclose.

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study’s protocol was approved by the central research ethics committee (CREC) (COA-CREC029/2022) and the local institutional review board (IRB) of each participating institution. A list of IRBs can be found in the supplementary material. As a result of the retrospective nature of the study, informed consent was exempted by the IRB.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by-nc/​4.​0/​.
Anhänge

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Bui AL, Horwich TB, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and risk profile of HF. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(1):30–41.CrossRefPubMed Bui AL, Horwich TB, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and risk profile of HF. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(1):30–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ponikowski P, Anker SD, AlHabib KF, et al. HF: preventing disease and death worldwide. ESC HF. 2014;1(1):4–25. Ponikowski P, Anker SD, AlHabib KF, et al. HF: preventing disease and death worldwide. ESC HF. 2014;1(1):4–25.
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Shimokawa H, Miura M, Nochioka K, et al. HF as a general pandemic in Asia. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015;17(9):884–92.CrossRefPubMed Shimokawa H, Miura M, Nochioka K, et al. HF as a general pandemic in Asia. Eur J Heart Fail. 2015;17(9):884–92.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM, et al. Trends in HF incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA. 2004;292(3):344–50.CrossRefPubMed Roger VL, Weston SA, Redfield MM, et al. Trends in HF incidence and survival in a community-based population. JAMA. 2004;292(3):344–50.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Tavazzi L, Senni M, Metra M, et al. Multicenter prospective observational study on acute and chronic HF: one-year follow-up results of IN-HF (Italian Network on HF) outcome registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):473–81.CrossRefPubMed Tavazzi L, Senni M, Metra M, et al. Multicenter prospective observational study on acute and chronic HF: one-year follow-up results of IN-HF (Italian Network on HF) outcome registry. Circ Heart Fail. 2013;6(3):473–81.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Jhund PS, Macintyre K, Simpson CR, et al. Long-term trends in first hospitalization for HF and subsequent survival between 1986 and 2003: a population study of 5.1 million people. Circulation. 2009;119(4):515–23. Jhund PS, Macintyre K, Simpson CR, et al. Long-term trends in first hospitalization for HF and subsequent survival between 1986 and 2003: a population study of 5.1 million people. Circulation. 2009;119(4):515–23.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Laothavorn P, Hengrussamee K, Kanjanavanit R, et al. Thai Acute Decompensated HF Registry (Thai ADHERE). CVD Prev Control. 2010;5(3):89–95. Laothavorn P, Hengrussamee K, Kanjanavanit R, et al. Thai Acute Decompensated HF Registry (Thai ADHERE). CVD Prev Control. 2010;5(3):89–95.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Janwanishstaporn S, Karaketklang K, Krittayaphong R. National trend in HF hospitalization and outcome under public health insurance system in Thailand 2008–2013. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022;22(1):203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Janwanishstaporn S, Karaketklang K, Krittayaphong R. National trend in HF hospitalization and outcome under public health insurance system in Thailand 2008–2013. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022;22(1):203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46–215.PubMed Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46–215.PubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Neumann T, Biermann J, Erbel R, et al. HF: the commonest reason for hospital admission in Germany: medical and economic perspectives. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106(16):269–75.PubMedPubMedCentral Neumann T, Biermann J, Erbel R, et al. HF: the commonest reason for hospital admission in Germany: medical and economic perspectives. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106(16):269–75.PubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Savarese G, Becher PM, Lund LH, et al. Global burden of HF: a comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc Res. 2023;118(17):3272–87.CrossRefPubMed Savarese G, Becher PM, Lund LH, et al. Global burden of HF: a comprehensive and updated review of epidemiology. Cardiovasc Res. 2023;118(17):3272–87.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat MacDonald MR, Tay WT, Teng TK, et al. Regional variation of mortality in HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction across Asia: outcomes in the ASIAN-HF registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(1):e012199.CrossRefPubMed MacDonald MR, Tay WT, Teng TK, et al. Regional variation of mortality in HF with reduced and preserved ejection fraction across Asia: outcomes in the ASIAN-HF registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020;9(1):e012199.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Shiga T, Suzuki A, Haruta S, et al. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized HF patients with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fractions in Japan. ESC Heart Fail. 2019;6(3):475–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shiga T, Suzuki A, Haruta S, et al. Clinical characteristics of hospitalized HF patients with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fractions in Japan. ESC Heart Fail. 2019;6(3):475–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Hao G, Wang X, Chen Z, et al. Prevalence of HF and left ventricular dysfunction in China: the China Hypertension Survey, 2012–2015. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(11):1329–37.CrossRefPubMed Hao G, Wang X, Chen Z, et al. Prevalence of HF and left ventricular dysfunction in China: the China Hypertension Survey, 2012–2015. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(11):1329–37.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Honma M, Tanaka F, Sato K, et al. Sex-specific temporal trends in the incidence and prevalence of hospitalized patients with preserved versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction HF: a Japanese community-wide study. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2015;9:15–21.PubMedPubMedCentral Honma M, Tanaka F, Sato K, et al. Sex-specific temporal trends in the incidence and prevalence of hospitalized patients with preserved versus reduced left ventricular ejection fraction HF: a Japanese community-wide study. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2015;9:15–21.PubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Tankumpuan T, Sindhu S, Perrin N, et al. A multi-site Thailand HF Snapshot Study. Heart Lung Circ. 2022;31(1):85–94.CrossRefPubMed Tankumpuan T, Sindhu S, Perrin N, et al. A multi-site Thailand HF Snapshot Study. Heart Lung Circ. 2022;31(1):85–94.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Youn YJ, Yoo B-S, Lee J-W, et al. Treatment performance measures affect clinical outcomes in patients with acute systolic heart failure: report from the Korean Heart Failure Registry. Circ J. 2012;76(5):1151–8.CrossRefPubMed Youn YJ, Yoo B-S, Lee J-W, et al. Treatment performance measures affect clinical outcomes in patients with acute systolic heart failure: report from the Korean Heart Failure Registry. Circ J. 2012;76(5):1151–8.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang Y, Zhang J, Butler J, et al. Contemporary epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients hospitalized for HF in China: results from the China HF (China-HF) registry. J Card Fail. 2017;23(12):868–75.CrossRefPubMed Zhang Y, Zhang J, Butler J, et al. Contemporary epidemiology, management, and outcomes of patients hospitalized for HF in China: results from the China HF (China-HF) registry. J Card Fail. 2017;23(12):868–75.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsuchihashi-Makaya M, Hamaguchi S, Kinugawa S, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized patients with HF and reduced vs preserved ejection fraction. Report from the Japanese Cardiac Registry of HF in Cardiology (JCARE-CARD). Circ J. 2009;73(10):1893–900. Tsuchihashi-Makaya M, Hamaguchi S, Kinugawa S, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalized patients with HF and reduced vs preserved ejection fraction. Report from the Japanese Cardiac Registry of HF in Cardiology (JCARE-CARD). Circ J. 2009;73(10):1893–900.
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Chioncel O, Lainscak M, Seferovic PM, et al. Epidemiology and one-year outcomes in patients with chronic HF and preserved, mid-range and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ESC HF Long-Term Registry. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(12):1574–85.CrossRefPubMed Chioncel O, Lainscak M, Seferovic PM, et al. Epidemiology and one-year outcomes in patients with chronic HF and preserved, mid-range and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ESC HF Long-Term Registry. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(12):1574–85.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Real-World Heart Failure Burden in Thai Patients
verfasst von
Panyapat Jiampo
Thidaporn Tangkittikasem
Thanita Boonyapiphat
Vichai Senthong
Artit Torpongpun
Publikationsdatum
07.02.2024
Verlag
Springer Healthcare
Erschienen in
Cardiology and Therapy / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 2193-8261
Elektronische ISSN: 2193-6544
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40119-024-00355-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2024

Cardiology and Therapy 2/2024 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

29.05.2024 Larynxkarzinom Nachrichten

Fast ein Viertel der Personen mit mäßig dysplastischen Stimmlippenläsionen entwickelt einen Kehlkopftumor. Solche Personen benötigen daher eine besonders enge ärztliche Überwachung.

Nach Herzinfarkt mit Typ-1-Diabetes schlechtere Karten als mit Typ 2?

29.05.2024 Herzinfarkt Nachrichten

Bei Menschen mit Typ-2-Diabetes sind die Chancen, einen Myokardinfarkt zu überleben, in den letzten 15 Jahren deutlich gestiegen – nicht jedoch bei Betroffenen mit Typ 1.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.