Introduction

Hospitalization for heart failure represents a pivotal event in the disease trajectory, after which the risk of death and readmission is sharply elevated and only gradually declines [8]. The contemporary hospitalized heart failure population is older, with longer disease duration, greater right-sided failure burden, cardiorenal syndrome, and non-cardiac comorbidity than the populations enrolled in the foundational neurohormonal therapy studies that shaped current guidelines, which complicates direct extrapolation of those recommendations to the discharge phase [9]. Two practical assessments are clinically relevant. First, the index admission offers a window to initiate and titrate GDMT, because in chronic outpatient care therapy is often left unchanged, and the admission can serve as the implementation opportunity [8]. Second, residual congestion at discharge, observable in roughly one-quarter of admissions in a two-hospital observational cohort, showed a trend toward higher 90-day readmission rates, making early reassessment an actionable clinical priority rather than a passive safety check [9]. A multi-society scientific statement therefore frames pre-discharge and early post-discharge management as a distinct phase aimed at preventing rehospitalization through treatment of residual congestion and through optimization of GDMT [8]. The distinction matters: a scheduled outpatient visit alone is administratively different from an active titration and monitoring package, and gap analyses that conflate the two risk inflating estimates of benefit.

A range of transitional-care interventions has been tested, including home-visiting programs, multidisciplinary heart-failure clinics, structured telephone support, telemonitoring, and hybrid packages that combine predischarge education with post-discharge coaching [7, 10, 11]. A 2014 comparative-effectiveness review of 47 randomized trials concluded that home-visiting programs and multidisciplinary clinics reduced all-cause readmission and mortality over 3–6 months, while structured telephone support reduced heart failure-specific readmission, and telemonitoring or primarily educational interventions had less consistent effects [10]. A more recent 2024 meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials of nurse-led transitional interventions estimated a relative risk of 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.89) for all-cause readmission and 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) for the composite of readmission and mortality versus control, with discussion of applicability to lower-middle-income settings [11]. Pooled adjusted estimates from observational studies of outpatient follow-up visits in US hospitals showed an approximately 21% lower adjusted measure of 30-day all-cause readmission (OR/HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69–0.91), although between-study heterogeneity was very high (I² = 92.7%), and effects varied by disease condition and analytic method [7].

Large trials yield different results. STRONG-HF supported rapid up-titration with close monitoring in selected patients, while PACT-HF, CONNECT-HF and BEAT-HF did not improve their primary clinical endpoints [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. TIM-HF2 supported structured remote management in a selected ambulatory population [6]. Table 1 preserves their populations and endpoint results. These are different bundles and comparators; the contrasts cannot identify visits, education, titration or monitoring as a single causal ingredient.

This narrative review addresses four interrelated questions. First, what is the empirical signal when post-hospital follow-up is studied as a visit versus an active treatment-optimization package? Second, how is treatment optimization operationalized during this vulnerable phase, and what safety constraints shape titration? Third, what is the evidence on transition-safety signals, including adverse events, residual congestion, and patient-reported experience? Fourth, what patient-centered considerations, including harms, feasibility, and contextual fit, should inform implementation, including in proposed local adaptations? The review is not a formal eligibility-screened systematic review and does not include original empirical data.

Review Approach

Focused PubMed Title/Abstract discovery on 6 October 2026 covered heart failure hospitalization, follow-up and transitional care. Retrieval was relevance-capped at 45 records with targeted supplementary named records. English-language reading and selection were purposive. Indexed identities and abstracts were verified; seven lawful PMC copies supplied accessible passages without complete appraisal of every source. No exhaustive search, formal eligibility screen, duplicate human screening, registered protocol, new meta-analysis or certainty grading was performed. Databases searched by source reviews were not searched for this manuscript. Study totals belong to those sources. Selected immediate-discharge and ambulatory populations, bundled interventions, process outcomes and clinical endpoints are separated; secondary analyses share parent cohorts. No Saudi evidence-gap conclusion was established.

The High-Risk Transition Phase and Why Follow-Up Matters

Epidemiologic surveys have described a "three-phase terrain" of post-discharge heart failure events, in which 30% of readmissions occur within the first 2 months after hospital discharge, 50% occur in the last 2 months of life, and the remaining 20% occur between these windows, underscoring that the early weeks carry concentrated risk [12]. A 2018 US analysis estimated approximately 1 million index heart-failure admissions and 233,000 readmissions, with average costs near $15,200 per readmission, illustrating the system-level and unit-cost rationale for transitional care [7]. The prevention review describes the US policy and readmission context alongside clinical approaches to transitional care; its overview does not make a new randomized comparison of the policy [12, 13].

From a pathophysiologic standpoint, three mechanisms plausibly link structured post-discharge care to outcome. First, residual congestion can be reassessed after discharge, with diuretic adjustment individualized to clinical status and hemodynamic and renal constraints [8, 9]. Second, the admission enables initiation and titration of GDMT, including renin-angiotensin system blockers, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; these three classes were up-titrated in STRONG-HF, which achieved higher rates of recommended doses than usual care [1]. Contemporary phenotype-specific treatment may also include sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, but this is a separate guideline consideration rather than a fourth class tested in the STRONG-HF up-titration protocol [8, 14]. Third, patient self-care behaviors (daily weight monitoring, sodium restriction, recognition of early decompensation, and adherence) can be targets of education and support, and nurse-led transitional care has improved self-care maintenance in pooled analyses [15]. These are plausible targets of clinical response; the trials of bundled care do not independently quantify the contribution of each target.

Distinguishing Visit Scheduling from Active Treatment Optimization

A central evidence-boundary axis is whether the intervention under study is a scheduled outpatient visit, a quality-improvement audit, an educational program, or an active medication-titration and monitoring package. The 2024 meta-analysis of US studies found that outpatient follow-up visits within 30 days were associated with a pooled adjusted measure of 0.79 (95% CI 0.69–0.91) for 30-day all-cause readmission, but between-study heterogeneity was very high (I² = 92.7%), and effects were smaller and narrower in studies that adequately controlled for time-dependent bias (0.91, 95% CI 0.83–0.99) than in studies that did not (0.69, 0.50–0.95) [7]. In disease-condition subgroup analyses, the adjusted effect was significant for heart failure (0.73, 0.55–0.95) and borderline for stroke (0.76, 0.57–1.01), with no significant effect for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (0.93, 0.68–1.26) [7]. Critically, time-dependent bias, in which patients who are readmitted early never have the opportunity for a follow-up visit and are counted as unexposed, materially inflates observed associations; the bias-controlled subgroup estimates are the more conservative and probably preferable for clinical interpretation [7].

These observational associations describe what happens when a follow-up visit occurs, but they do not prove that scheduling the visit caused the difference; confounding by indication (healthier patients more likely to attend and less likely to be readmitted) remains a plausible alternative explanation. Several randomized trials have tested bundles that included a visit as one component. PACT-HF combined nurse-led self-care education, a structured discharge summary, a family-physician follow-up appointment within 1 week, and, for high-risk patients, structured nurse home visits and heart-function clinic care; this bundle did not improve the composite of all-cause readmission, emergency department visit, or death at 3 months (HR 0.99, 0.83–1.19) or the 30-day composite of all-cause readmission or emergency department visit (HR 0.93, 0.73–1.18), and the 3-year extension likewise did not improve the composite (HR 0.92, 0.81–1.05), and GDMT uptake, except sacubitril/valsartan, did not differ between arms. Limited treatment change is an explanation proposed by the extension authors, rather than a mechanism isolated by randomization [2, 3]. CONNECT-HF evaluated a hospital-and-postdischarge quality-improvement intervention with audit and feedback; the composite of first HF rehospitalization or all-cause mortality was 38.6% in the intervention versus 39.2% in usual care (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81–1.05), and the change in the opportunity-based quality score did not differ significantly (adjusted OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93–1.21) [4]. These null findings concern the tested bundles, populations and usual-care comparators. They do not isolate visits, education or medication titration as individually ineffective or effective components.

A complementary contrast is the PACT-HF secondary analyses in which patient-reported transition quality (B-PREPARED, CTM-3) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) were significantly better in the intervention arm at 6 weeks, without commensurate gains in clinical events [2]. This pattern, of better process and patient-experience outcomes without clinical-event gains, recurs in transitional-care research and matters: patient-experience measures are patient-centered but distinct from clinical events [7].

Active Optimization Packages: STRONG-HF and Beyond

STRONG-HF randomized 1078 patients (542 high-intensity care, 536 usual care) who were admitted with acute heart failure and not on full guideline-directed doses, across 14 countries, with stratification by left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40% vs >40%) [1]. High-intensity care aimed at up-titration to 100% of recommended doses within 2 weeks of discharge, with four outpatient visits over 2 months that closely monitored clinical status, laboratory values, and NT-proBNP. The trial was stopped early per the data and safety monitoring board's recommendation because of greater-than-expected between-group differences. By day 90, the proportion of patients up-titrated to full doses was substantially higher in the high-intensity arm (renin-angiotensin blockers 55% vs 2%; beta-blockers 49% vs 4%; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists 84% vs 46%), and by day 90, blood pressure, pulse, NYHA class, bodyweight, and NT-proBNP decreased more in the high-intensity arm [1]. The primary endpoint of 180-day all-cause death or HF readmission occurred in 15.2% (down-weighted adjusted Kaplan-Meier) in the high-intensity arm versus 23.3% in usual care (adjusted risk difference 8.1%, 95% CI 2.9–13.2; risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.86) [1]. However, more adverse events by 90 days occurred in the high-intensity arm (41% vs 29%), and serious (16% vs 17%) and fatal (5% vs 6%) adverse events were similar between arms per the published abstract [1]. These event counts define a clinically important boundary: the benefit was accompanied by more overall adverse events, while the reported serious and fatal adverse-event proportions were similar, and the trial cannot be read as evidence that rapid up-titration is universally safe in unselected immediate-discharge populations.

The STRONG-HF safety-indicator analysis provides further mechanistic detail on safety boundaries. In the active arm, 313 of 542 patients (57.7%) met at least one safety indicator (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m², serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, heart rate <55 bpm, or NT-proBNP >10% above predischarge value) at one or more follow-up visits in the first 6 weeks after discharge [16]. Patients meeting any safety indicator had more severe baseline symptoms, lower systolic blood pressure, higher heart rate, and achieved a lower average percentage of optimal GDMT doses (mean difference −11.0%, 95% CI −13.6 to −8.4%) [16]. The primary endpoint of 180-day all-cause death or HF readmission occurred in 15.0% of patients with any safety indicator versus 14.2% without (adjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.48–1.46), so that, when managed according to protocol, safety indicators were not associated with significantly worse primary outcomes overall; importantly, this is an observational within-arm analysis, so causality between thresholds and outcomes cannot be inferred [16]. However, individual safety indicators did carry signals: systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg showed a non-significant trend toward increased 180-day all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.68, 95% CI 0.94–7.64), and eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² was associated with more HF readmissions (adjusted HR 3.60, 95% CI 1.22–10.60) [16]. The practical implication is not that targeted safety indicators uniformly worsen outcomes, but that protocol-defined thresholds for down-titration or deferral are integral to active optimization and must be embedded in any local adaptation.

The STRONG-HF age-stratified analysis (older than 65 years versus younger) reinforces that active optimization is feasible across ages, with similar rates of adverse events and no significant treatment-by-age interaction for the primary endpoint, although older patients had smaller quality-of-life gains at 90 days [17]. The TIM-HF2 trial, although testing a remote-management rather than a clinic-based titration package, illustrates that structured remote management in an ambulatory, NYHA class II–III population with an HF admission within the prior year reduced days lost to unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization or death (4.88% vs 6.64%, ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–1.00) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.96) [6]. The TIM-HF2 rurality pre-specified analysis further showed that effective subgroup effects did not differ by cardiologist location (rural RR 0.82, 0.62–1.08; urban RR 0.78, 0.55–1.09) or patient residence (rural RR 0.74, 0.55–0.99; urban RR 0.89, 0.65–1.22), with effects increasing with greater travel distance (13% risk reduction per doubling of distance; p-interaction 0.021), a signal that needs confirmation in other settings where in-person specialty care is geographically constrained, while recognizing that TIM-HF2 enrolled a selected ambulatory population and is not evidence for unselected immediate-discharge patients [18].

Table 1. Major randomized trials of post-discharge care and remote management in selected adults with heart failure.

Table note. Counts are participant totals from the parent randomized trials. Secondary analyses (e.g., safety-indicator [16] or age-stratified [17] analyses of STRONG-HF; the TIM-HF2 rurality analysis [18]) share cohorts with their parent trials and are not listed as independent trials or as separate patient totals. The 45-record retrieval cap is a discovery cap and does not indicate the number of included studies; literature counts cited as study totals (e.g., 47 trials in [10], 11 trials in [11]) belong to the source reviews.

Safety Boundaries of Active Titration in the Early Post-Discharge Phase

A clinically important evidence boundary is the safety profile of rapid up-titration in recently hospitalized patients, who are more hemodynamically tenuous than the stable outpatient populations in which foundational GDMT trials were conducted [9]. The STRONG-HF safety-indicator analysis found that 57.7% of high-intensity-care patients triggered at least one safety indicator within 6 weeks of discharge, and that patients meeting any indicator achieved a lower average percentage of optimal GDMT doses, with less improvement in quality of life, but without a significant overall increase in the 180-day primary endpoint when managed per protocol; this is observational within-arm analysis rather than a randomized test of monitoring thresholds, and the non-significant overall comparison does not exclude clinically meaningful harm in specific subgroups [16]. The implication is not that safety indicators are benign; systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg showed a non-significant trend toward higher 180-day all-cause mortality, and eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² was associated with more HF readmissions [16]. These signals matter for local adaptation: any active optimization protocol must define explicit thresholds for down-titration or deferral and must include safety monitoring that is responsive to those thresholds.

The STRONG-HF age-stratified analysis adds a clinically important dimension: adverse event rates were similar between older and younger patients in the high-intensity arm, but quality-of-life improvement at 90 days was smaller in older patients, with no significant treatment-by-age interaction on the primary endpoint [17]. This does not contradict the feasibility of active optimization in older adults, but it does suggest that patient-centered benefit assessment should not be limited to event-based endpoints, and that older adults may value different outcomes, including functional status and symptom burden, than younger adults.

Beyond protocolized safety indicators, observational data on real-world discharge decisions show that guideline deviation is common and not necessarily poor care. In a 226-discharge sample across academic and community hospitals, 25% of HF discharges occurred with residual congestion, 37% of HFrEF discharges were made without a beta-blocker or at a lower dose than at admission, and 46% were made without an ACEi/ARB or at a lower dose; renal dysfunction was the most common reason for discharge with residual congestion, and hypotension the most common reason for discharge without neurohormonal therapy [9]. The contemporary hospitalized population is older, with longer disease duration and more cardiorenal and right-sided involvement, than the populations in which the foundational GDMT trials were conducted, so that guideline recommendations derived from stable outpatient populations may be increasingly inapplicable at discharge [9]. The Heart Failure Association consensus on patient profiling recommends tailoring GDMT to nine clinical profiles defined by heart rate, atrial fibrillation, symptomatic hypotension, eGFR, hyperkalemia, and predischarge congestion, and argues that a personalized approach may yield more comprehensive therapy than forced sequential titration of each drug class [19].

Self-Care, Education, and Patient Experience

The 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of nursing interventions to improve self-care in HF identified 27 studies (24 randomized controlled trials, 3 quasi-experimental; 2,176 participants) and pooled effects by intervention category [15]. Transitional care (face-to-face sessions plus home visits, phone calls, or digital contact) was associated with improvements in self-care maintenance (mean difference 7.26, 95% CI 5.20–9.33) and self-care management (mean difference 5.02, 95% CI 1.34–8.69) [15]. Home care combined with phone calls or digital interventions improved self-management and self-care behaviors (mean difference −7.91, 95% CI −9.29 to −6.54; a lower score on the relevant scale denotes better self-care), while remote care improved self-care behaviors when delivered as phone-call programs but not when delivered as digital-only interventions [15]. The source separates modes of delivery and scales; it does not establish a universal hierarchy of increasingly active modalities or a causal effect of passivity.

A 2019 Brazilian randomized trial of 201 patients compared individualized nurse-led discharge guidance plus telephone follow-up at 7 and 30 days with standardized discharge guidance alone, and found significantly higher drug adherence (relative risk 3.80, 95% CI 1.77–8.12), more favorable non-drug adherence, and lower 90-day rehospitalization in the intervention arm, although mortality differences did not reach significance (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.62–5.13); the trial was single-center and unblinded, with a single researcher delivering the intervention, raising performance and detection bias concerns [20]. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of seven studies on teach-back discharge education found a significant reduction in overall readmission (odds ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.17–0.94), although risk-of-bias assessment was variable and only two studies scored low on overall risk of bias [21]. Together, these interventions convey that structured, individualized discharge education that elicits patient understanding is a measurable component of post-discharge care.

Patient-reported transition quality is sensitive to structured transitional care even when hard outcomes are not. In PACT-HF, B-PREPARED scores at 6 weeks were 16.6 in the intervention versus 13.9 in usual care (difference 2.65, 95% CI 1.37–3.92), CTM-3 scores were 76.5 versus 70.3 (difference 6.16, 0.90–11.43), and EQ-5D-5L scores were 0.7 versus 0.7 (difference 0.06, 0.01–0.11), but quality-adjusted life-years did not differ at 6 months [2]. This pattern is a clinically important counterexample: better transition experience does not necessarily translate to event-free survival, and patient-experience measures are patient-centered but distinct from clinical events.

An earlier randomized trial by Naylor and colleagues provides a useful counterexample to an exclusive focus on modern drug-titration protocols. It enrolled 239 patients aged at least 65 years in six Philadelphia hospitals and evaluated a three-month advanced-practice-nurse discharge planning and home-follow-up protocol. Over 52 weeks, time to first readmission or death was longer in the intervention group, with fewer total readmissions (104 versus 162; P =.047). Quality-of-life and satisfaction gains were evident at some early assessments [22]. This was a sustained relationship across settings, not an isolated appointment. Its older treatment era and setting limit transfer to current care, but the trial supports evaluating continuity, home assessment and patient support alongside medication response rather than assuming that pharmacological titration alone explains every positive transitional-care result.

Albert and colleagues' review identified eight recurring transition themes, including patient and caregiver education, knowledge and engagement, self-care, transition personnel and communication between settings [23]. These are organizational themes rather than independently randomized active ingredients. In a proposed pathway, a named clinician or liaison would reconcile the discharge summary, medication list, laboratory plan and symptom-action instructions, and confirm that the receiving team knows what requires response. A completed referral or transmitted record is a process measure; whether the information arrived, was understood and prompted appropriate action is a different measure. The review supports attention to these linked responsibilities, without proving that any single communication element independently prevents readmission.

Remote Monitoring, Structured Telephone Support, and the Modality Question

The 2014 comparative-effectiveness review of 47 randomized trials distinguished modalities: home-visiting programs and multidisciplinary HF clinics reduced all-cause readmission and mortality over 3–6 months; structured telephone support reduced HF-specific readmission; telemonitoring and primarily educational interventions did not consistently reduce readmission or mortality [10]. A 2014 systematic review of disease-management programs further documented that no single modality produces consistent benefit across populations, and that one approach applied to a broad population may produce erratic effects on readmissions [12]. Heterogeneity of intervention designs and populations is the central obstacle to a clean signal.

The 2024 meta-analysis of nurse-led transitional interventions (11 randomized controlled trials) found a pooled relative risk of 0.69 (95% CI 0.54–0.89) for all-cause readmission and 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.91) for the composite of readmission and mortality, with explicit discussion of applicability to lower-middle-income settings, emphasizing adaptability, leveraging of existing resources, and interdisciplinary collaboration [11]. This estimate is consistent with the broader literature but should be read alongside null results from large trials of telehealth-intensive packages in the US, including BEAT-HF [5] and CONNECT-HF [4], where the intervention arm did not improve the primary outcome.

TIM-HF2 is a key data point on remote management in a defined population. It enrolled ambulatory patients in NYHA class II or III with an HF admission within the prior 12 months (not immediate-discharge patients) and an LVEF ≤45% (or >45% with oral diuretic), and tested a structured, cardiologist-coordinated remote patient management package including daily measurement, telephone- or app-supported HF nurse contact at least monthly, careful observation of GDMT up-titration, and communication with the primary cardiologist [6, 18]. The trial reduced days lost to unplanned CV hospitalization or all-cause death (ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.65–1.00) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50–0.96), with cardiovascular mortality showing a non-significant trend (HR 0.671, 95% CI 0.45–1.01) [6]. The pre-specified rurality analysis found no significant interaction by rural or urban cardiologist location or patient residence and a distance interaction, which warrants confirmation in other settings, while recognizing that this signal derives from a single selected ambulatory cohort and is not a guarantee of effect in unselected immediate-discharge populations [18].

Table 2 presents safety signals and clinical-response constraints during early post-discharge optimization in adults hospitalized for heart failure.

Table 2. Safety signals and clinical-response constraints during early post-discharge optimization in adults hospitalized for heart failure.

Table note. Safety signals come from the STRONG-HF safety-indicator analysis [16], the age-stratified analysis [17], and observational data on guideline deviations at discharge [9]; the profiling framework is from the HFA ESC consensus [19]. Safety-indicator thresholds are study-protocol indicators, not population-specific clinical recommendations, and should be applied with local clinical judgment.

Health-System Context, Workforce, and Cost Considerations

Transitional-care service design is heterogeneous, and economic analyses reflect this. A 2020 microsimulation study of patients aged 75 years at discharge modeled disease-management clinics, nurse home visits, and nurse case management, and found that all three were more costly and more effective than standard care, with nurse home visits dominating the other two and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately $19,570 per quality-adjusted life-year gained versus standard care [24]. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were largely insensitive to variations in in-hospital mortality, age, or rehospitalization costs, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed preference for transitional care in nearly all 10,000 samples at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 or more per QALY gained [24]. The investigators argued that transitional-care services should become the standard of care, while acknowledging that intervention effectiveness and costs are setting-dependent and that the model used US cost inputs and a lifetime horizon for a population aged 75 at discharge, not measured local costs or direct trial-derived QALYs [24].

Workforce and implementation context matter to feasibility. A 2024 meta-analysis of 11 nurse-led transitional-care randomized controlled trials argued that nurse-led programs are adaptable to lower-middle-income countries because they leverage existing resources and rely on nursing rather than high-cost infrastructure, while emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration [11]. Conversely, large US trials of audit-and-feedback [4] and remote monitoring [5] did not improve primary clinical outcomes, showing that those particular intervention bundles did not improve their primary clinical outcomes. Whether a specific clinical-response component explains the difference from a positive trial remains unresolved.

The HRRP context shapes practice patterns. A 2021 review of 20 US publications on hospital initiatives implemented in response to HRRP found that most interventions fell into inpatient care, discharge, transitional care, and data collection/administration, and that transitional-care interventions most commonly involved scheduling follow-up within 7–14 days, performing post-discharge phone calls, and partnering with community physicians [25]. Its evidence set included eight qualitative reports, three systematic reviews, five quality-improvement studies, two ongoing-trial designs, one future trial plan and one observational study; it was not a set of 20 completed randomized trials [25]. The review did not identify reported practices mechanistically linked to harm, although quantitative analyses have raised concerns about HRRP and mortality that the authors noted may reflect secular trends rather than program-induced harm [25]. Failure to identify such practices in this descriptive literature does not exclude safety problems or establish the causal effect of the policy. Nurse-led meta-analysis [11] and US cost-effectiveness modeling [24] address different questions and should not be treated as a single universal ranking of delivery modes.

Methodological Cautions, Missing Data, and Evidence Gaps

Observational follow-up associations remain vulnerable to time-dependent bias and confounding; the smaller bias-controlled estimate is more cautious than the overall association [7]. Trials also use different usual-care baselines, settings and patient eligibility. STRONG-HF involved patients not on full GDMT; TIM-HF2 involved ambulatory patients with prior-year admission, while BEAT-HF addressed a recently hospitalized older population [1, 5, 6]. Their results are not interchangeable.

Secondary safety, age and rurality analyses do not add independent randomized patients [16, 17, 18]. Transition experience, self-care and quality of life should be assessed separately from readmission and death [2, 15]. Source reviews describe limited short-term endpoint reporting and heterogeneous usual care [10, 12]. The monitoring thresholds in STRONG-HF are study-protocol indicators, not universal cutoffs for all local patients [16]. Interpretation also needs adverse events, treatment tolerability, missing follow-up and response capacity. These limits support explicit local evaluation rather than a predicted Saudi effect.

Proposed Local Adaptation to the Saudi Healthcare Context

The literature reviewed here defines a clinically coherent model: active treatment-optimization packages, with rapid up-titration of GDMT paired with protocol-defined safety indicators, are distinct from existing follow-up arrangements alone. A proposed local service-evaluation/adaptation discussion might consider three components. First, a structured post-discharge optimization package that includes predischarge initiation of foundational GDMT (renin-angiotensin system blocker, beta-blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor as indicated), explicit dose targets, and protocolized safety indicators (eGFR, K⁺, SBP, HR, NT-proBNP) for down-titration or deferral, using phenotype-specific contemporary guidance [8, 14] alongside the monitoring concept of STRONG-HF [1, 16], whose titration protocol concerned renin-angiotensin system blockers, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; specific titration doses and timing beyond the sources are not prescribed here and must be set by local clinical judgment. Second, structured transitional care (akin to PACT-HF and the 2025 nursing-intervention meta-analysis [2, 15]) with predischarge education using teach-back, individualized discharge guidance, and structured telephone follow-up in the first week, with priority for some at-risk patients, while recognizing that PACT-HF did not improve primary clinical composites [2, 3]. Third, where geography constrains specialty access, remote patient management, modeled on TIM-HF2 and adapted to local infrastructure and language, with attention to digital inclusion and to the distance-dependent effectiveness signal in TIM-HF2 [6, 18]; TIM-HF2 enrolled a selected ambulatory population with prior-year admission and a staffed clinical-response system, not an immediate-discharge population, and the rurality finding is a signal within that cohort, not proof of effect in unselected local populations.

These are proposed discussion elements for a local service-evaluation/adaptation, not measured Saudi outcomes or an endorsement, and clinical practice points must be linked to guidelines and source [8, 19], with retained need for individual clinical judgment. Its eventual classification as research, audit or service evaluation depends on the actual protocol and authorized institutional determination before data collection. No Saudi-expected benefit is imported into this proposal.

Table 3 presents implementation components proposed for local adaptation discussion, mapped to source evidence and safety constraints.

Table 3. Implementation components proposed for local adaptation discussion, mapped to source evidence and safety constraints.

Table note. Components are mapped to source evidence and to safety or feasibility constraints identified in the source literature. Clinical practice points must be linked to guideline or source, with retained need for individual clinical judgment. The table is a synthesis/proposal, not measured local outcomes.

Limitations

Focused, purposive selection limits completeness and novelty assessment. Seven retained PMC copies supplied accessible passages, while important trial endpoints were verified from indexed abstracts. No individual-participant extraction, new meta-analysis, certainty grading, registered protocol or duplicate human screening was undertaken. Source reviews may include overlapping trials, and within-trial secondary analyses share cohorts. Bundled interventions cannot identify independent component effects. Follow-up associations may be affected by time-dependent bias and patient selection. Ejection-fraction phenotype, stability, renal function, electrolytes, blood pressure and ability to participate constrain applicability. The proposed local framework reports neither Saudi outcomes nor local costs; its protocol classification and governance require authorized determination. Human clinical and source review remain open.

Selected trial outcome labels

Figure 2 presents outcome labels for selected trials discussed in this review.

Figure 2. Qualitative comparison of selected trial packages. Outcome labels summarize the specified primary comparison in each trial and do not rank programs, establish ingredient-level causality or combine effect sizes. STRONG-HF and TIM-HF2 involved selected populations and active clinical-response systems; null trials retain their own outcome and comparator scope. No expected Saudi benefit or new measured effects are presented.

Source and interpretation note for Figure 2. No new measured effects, local outcomes, invented scores or quantitative effect aggregation. Study-specific qualitative findings are attributed to verified sources. Sources [1,2,4,5,6]; Contrasting trial packages and qualitative primary-outcome findings (Table 1).

Conclusion

After heart failure hospitalization, follow-up should be judged through the clinical response it enables, treatment tolerability and patient experience. STRONG-HF supports one intensive optimization package in selected patients; null trials and TIM-HF2 show why population, comparator and delivery model matter. Cross-trial comparisons cannot isolate a single effective component. Safety monitoring and response ownership belong in a proposed pathway, with treatment guided by individual clinical assessment. Process and patient-experience gains should be reported alongside clinical endpoints, adverse events and missing follow-up. A Saudi adaptation requires local feasibility and outcome evaluation rather than importation of a trial effect or a US economic estimate.

Declarations

Institutional determination. This manuscript is a narrative synthesis of published literature. No participants were recruited and no new participant-level dataset was created for this work. No exemption or approval is claimed. Any future local evaluation requires its own protocol and authorized determination before data collection.

References

1. Mebazaa A, Davison B, Chioncel O, Cohen-Solal A, Diaz R, Filippatos G, et al. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure (STRONG-HF): a multinational, open-label, randomised, trial. Lancet. 2022;400(10367):1938-1952. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36356631/ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02076-1

2. Van Spall HGC, Lee SF, Xie F, Oz UE, Perez R, Mitoff PR, et al. Effect of Patient-Centered Transitional Care Services on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The PACT-HF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;321(8):753-761. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30806695/ https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0710

3. Averbuch T, Lee SF, Zagorski B, Mebazaa A, Fonarow GC, Thabane L, et al. Effect of a transitional care model following hospitalization for heart failure: 3-year outcomes of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in Heart Failure (PACT-HF) randomized controlled trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2024;26(3):652-660. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38303550/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3134

4. DeVore AD, Granger BB, Fonarow GC, Al-Khalidi HR, Albert NM, Lewis EF, et al. Effect of a Hospital and Postdischarge Quality Improvement Intervention on Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Care for Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The CONNECT-HF Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;326(4):314-323. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34313687/ https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.8844

5. Ong MK, Romano PS, Edgington S, Aronow HU, Auerbach AD, Black JT, et al. Effectiveness of Remote Patient Monitoring After Discharge of Hospitalized Patients With Heart Failure: The Better Effectiveness After Transition -- Heart Failure (BEAT-HF) Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(3):310-8. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857383/ https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.7712

6. Koehler F, Koehler K, Deckwart O, Prescher S, Wegscheider K, Kirwan BA, et al. Efficacy of telemedical interventional management in patients with heart failure (TIM-HF2): a randomised, controlled, parallel-group, unmasked trial. Lancet. 2018;392(10152):1047-1057. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153985/ https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31880-4

7. Bilicki DJ, Reeves MJ. Outpatient Follow-Up Visits to Reduce 30-Day All-Cause Readmissions for Heart Failure, COPD, Myocardial Infarction, and Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Prev Chronic Dis. 2024;21:E74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39325638/ https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd21.240138

8. Metra M, Adamo M, Tomasoni D, Mebazaa A, Bayes-Genis A, Abdelhamid M, et al. Pre-discharge and early post-discharge management of patients hospitalized for acute heart failure: A scientific statement by the Heart Failure Association of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023;25(7):1115-1131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37448210/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2888

9. Gilstrap LG, Stevenson LW, Small R, Parambi R, Hamershock R, Greenberg J, et al. Reasons for Guideline Nonadherence at Heart Failure Discharge. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(15):e008789. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30371240/ https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.008789

10. Feltner C, Jones CD, Cené CW, Zheng ZJ, Sueta CA, Coker-Schwimmer EJ, et al. Transitional care interventions to prevent readmissions for persons with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(11):774-84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24862840/ https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-0083

11. Koontalay A, Samai T, Samutalai C, Onthuam W, Fonghiranrat D. Effectiveness of Nurse-led Heart Failure Transitional Care Services in Improving Clinical Outcomes and Applicability to Low-resource Settings: A Meta-analysis. WHO South East Asia J Public Health. 2024;13(2):60-68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39995003/ https://doi.org/10.4103/WHO-SEAJPH.WHO-SEAJPH_26_23

12. Gorthi J, Hunter CB, Mooss AN, Alla VM, Hilleman DE. Reducing Heart Failure Hospital Readmissions: A Systematic Review of Disease Management Programs. Cardiol Res. 2014;5(5):126-138. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28348710/ https://doi.org/10.14740/cr362w

13. Goldgrab D, Balakumaran K, Kim MJ, Tabtabai SR. Updates in heart failure 30-day readmission prevention. Heart Fail Rev. 2019;24(2):177-187. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30488242/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10741-018-9754-4

14. Salah HM, Ambrosy AP, Biegus J, Bocchi EA, Butler J, Chioncel O, et al. Optimizing Pre-to-Post Discharge Transition of Care in Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure - Part 3 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management. J Card Fail. 2025:S1071-9164(25)00433-6. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41027508/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2025.09.020

15. Longhini J, Gauthier K, Konradsen H, Palese A, Kabir ZN, Waldréus N. The effectiveness of nursing interventions to improve self-care for patients with heart failure at home: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):286. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40087643/ https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02867-7

16. Tomasoni D, Davison B, Adamo M, Pagnesi M, Mebazaa A, Edwards C, et al. Safety Indicators in Patients Receiving High-intensity Care After Hospital Admission for Acute Heart Failure: The STRONG-HF Trial. J Card Fail. 2024;30(4):525-537. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37820896/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.09.002

17. Arrigo M, Biegus J, Asakage A, Mebazaa A, Davison B, Edwards C, et al. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies for acute heart failure in elderly patients: A sub-analysis of the STRONG-HF randomized clinical trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2023;25(7):1145-1155. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37246591/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2920

18. Kerwagen F, Störk S, Koehler K, Vettorazzi E, Bauser M, Zernikow J, et al. Rurality, travel distance, and effectiveness of remote patient management in patients with heart failure in the TIM-HF2 trial in Germany: a pre-specified analysis of an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2025;54:101321. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40672055/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101321

19. Rosano GMC, Moura B, Metra M, Böhm M, Bauersachs J, Ben Gal T, et al. Patient profiling in heart failure for tailoring medical therapy. A consensus document of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail. 2021;23(6):872-881. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33932268/ https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.2206

20. Oscalices MIL, Okuno MFP, Lopes MCBT, Campanharo CRV, Batista REA. Discharge guidance and telephone follow-up in the therapeutic adherence of heart failure: randomized clinical trial. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2019;27:e3159. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31432915/ https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2484.3159

21. Oh S, Choi H, Oh EG, Lee JY. Effectiveness of discharge education using teach-back method on readmission among heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2023;107:107559. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36411152/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.11.001

22. Naylor MD, Brooten DA, Campbell RL, Maislin G, McCauley KM, Schwartz JS. Transitional care of older adults hospitalized with heart failure: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52(5):675-84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15086645/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52202.x

23. Albert NM. A systematic review of transitional-care strategies to reduce rehospitalization in patients with heart failure. Heart Lung. 2016;45(2):100-13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26831374/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.12.001

24. Blum MR, Øien H, Carmichael HL, Heidenreich P, Owens DK, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD. Cost-Effectiveness of Transitional Care Services After Hospitalization With Heart Failure. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(4):248-257. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31986526/ https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1980

25. Kratka AK, Britton KA, Thompson RW, Wasfy JH. National Hospital Initiatives to Improve Performance on Heart Failure Readmission Metrics. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2021;31:78-82. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33339772/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2020.12.015