Josephson, Richard

Aims Despite the common occurrence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), there is limited evidence to guide revascularization. Methods and Results We investigated the long‐term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with HF and significant CAD across the spectrum of ejection fraction, using a large national cohort of patients from the Veteran Affairs (VA) Medical Centers in the US. Patients with HF were stratified into groups, HFpEF, HF with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and compared to patients with no preoperative HF. We analysed 10 396 patients. Despite an increased hazard in the first year following revascularization, the long‐term survival (median follow‐up 6.6 years; interquartile range 3.7–10.1) of HFpEF post‐CABG was similar to controls (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.68‐1.06), but survival progressively declined with HFmrEF and HFrEF. Similar trends were seen with recurrent HF hospitalization with lower risk with baseline HFpEF (43.9 ± 6.9/100 patient‐years) compared to HFmrEF (65.9 ± 3.8/100 patient‐years) and HFrEF (93.4 ± 4.8/100 patient‐years). Although HFpEF patients had lower mortality and HF hospitalization post‐CABG compared to patients with a lower ejection fraction, they experienced the highest rates of future myocardial infarction. Conclusion Although HFpEF patients with CAD have greater short‐term risk post‐CABG, their long‐term survival is comparable to controls. However, they are at increased risk for HF hospitalizations and myocardial infarction. These data support the safety of CABG in HFpEF patients and suggest continuum of mortality risk for ischaemic HF when stratified by baseline ejection fraction before revascularization.

Background: Guidelines recommend involvement of palliative care (PC) for patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease and their families. Little is known about the current integration of PC and CV services. Research Objectives: Our national survey aimed to describe current practices and to identify benefits, challenges, and barriers with collaboration. Methods: Qualitative content analysis of open-response questions in an investigator-developed electronic survey study of CV and PC providers (MDs, NPs, PAs, and other allied health) using email listservs, social media, and crowdsourcing. Frequencies were tabulated using SAS statistical software. Results: Of 134 respondents, most were physicians (n=56, 57%) or advanced practice RNs or PAs (n=37, 28%), from 52 U.S. institutions, representing 33 states. The most common care for which PC was integrated were mechanical circulatory support, advanced heart failure, and heart transplantation; the least common care for which PC was integrated were TAVR, ECMO, and pulmonary hypertension. Integrated practice (n=80, 61%), PC identification of goals of care (n=20, 15%) and PC aid in patient/family communication (n=15, 11%) were the most commonly identified as positives in current practice. PC provider workforce (n=22, 16%), underutilization of PC referrals (n=20, 15%), late disease PC referral (n=19, 14%), and fundamental knowledge deficit of specialty scope (n=18, 14%) were most frequently identified as challenges. Other barriers specifically noted were underdeveloped health infrastructure and limited allocated resources (n=23,17%) and mis-/negative perception of services (n=15, 11%). Conclusion: PC and CV collaboration occurs for a high proportion of CV patients and is viewed as overwhelming positive, despite the challenges of limited PC specialists availability, underdeveloped healthcare infrastructure, limited understanding of specialty practice, and late referrals. Priorities includes increasing PC provider availability, expanding knowledge of PC services, educating providers on models of collaboration, and improving institutional support.