Wagner, Jean

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is a new therapy for advanced heart failure (HF). The number of HF patients eligible for LVAD and the cardiology providers’ comfort level with referral for LVAD remains unclear. Objective: To assess provider perception of LVAD candidacy and LVAD referral patterns in consecutive HF patients. Methods: Providers completed a survey for each HF patient seen between March 1, 2013 and April 26, 2013. The survey listed standard LVAD candidacy criteria and asked 1) if a patient was an LVAD candidate (yes, no, unsure); 2) reasons patients were not LVAD candidates (check list, table); and 3) whether the patient had been referred for LVAD evaluation (yes, no, unsure). Results: Patients (n=522) were seen in a tertiary HF outpatient clinic (n=357; 68%), a tertiary HF inpatient service (n=36; 7%), a tertiary general cardiology service (n=45; 9%) or a community based outpatient cardiac clinic (n=84; 16%) Median age of patients was 73 years and 65% were male. Provider assessment of LVAD candidacy was “no” in 443 (85%), “yes” in 35 (7%) and “unsure” in 43 (8%) with ineligibility for LVAD attributed to multiple concerns (Table). Ninety percent of patients considered “too old” for LVAD were over 78 years of age. Provider designation of LVAD candidacy as yes or unsure varied across practice setting: tertiary HF outpatient clinic, 12%; tertiary HF inpatient service, 42%; tertiary general cardiology service, 22%; and community based outpatient cardiac clinic, 13%. In patients with a provider designation of LVAD candidacy as yes or unsure (n=78), only 21 (27%) patients had been referred for LVAD evaluation. Conclusion: When provided with LVAD candidacy criteria, providers indicated 15% of HF patients were (7%) or were possibly (8%) LVAD candidates but indicated that few patients had undergone a formal LVAD evaluation. These data suggest that measures to improve evaluation of HF patients for LVAD are needed.

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome with an overall poor prognosis, but the clinical trajectory is often unpredictable in individuals. There has been an impetus to promote iterative patient-provider discussions regarding preferences for end of life (EOL) care and advanced care planning. However, very little is known regarding provider preferences or their personal confidence addressing EOL care with their patients with HF. To address these gaps in knowledge, we surveyed clinicians at three practice sites in a large integrated health system. Methods: Physicians, nurse practitioners (NP), and physician assistants (PA) at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) and its surrounding health system were asked to participate in an electronic survey in October 2013. Clinicians surveyed included tertiary care HF specialists (Tertiary Care Cardiology), cardiologists and NP/PAs practicing in a community setting (Community Cardiology), and primary care clinicians (Primary Care). Results: A total of 95 clinicians completed the survey (52.5% response rate), including 50 physicians and 45 NP/PAs. Clinicians reported discussing prognosis and EOL wishes when their patient’s health status was worsening, but only 12% reported annual discussions as advocated by the American Heart Association. In total 52% of providers reported one or more reasons that they hesitate to discuss EOL care with their patients, including provider discomfort (11%), perception of patient (21%) or family (12%) unreadiness to have the discussion, fear of destroying hope (9%), or a lack of time (8%). Tertiary Care (63%) and Community Cardiology (58%) clinicians were more likely to attribute responsibility for having EOL discussions to the HF cardiologist, while 66% of Primary Care providers felt it was their responsibility. Tertiary and Community Cardiology clinicians were more likely to have referred patients to Palliative Medicine within the last year than Primary Care (89% vs. 21%, p<0.001). Overall, 30% of those surveyed reported low or very low confidence levels in initiating prognosis or EOL discussions, enrolling patients in hospice, or providing EOL care, with lower confidence among those with fewer years of clinical experience. The majority of clinicians expressed a high level of interest in further skills acquisition on these topics. Conclusion: There is tremendous variability in the way that clinicians view and approach advanced care discussions with their patients with HF; varying provider perception and lack of provider confidence may contribute. Despite this variability, most clinicians are interested in further development and skills acquisition. Addressing the learning needs of providers is an important next step toward enhancing the EOL care of patients with HF.

Background: As heart failure often follows an unpredictable clinical trajectory, there has been an impetus to promote iterative patient-provider discussions regarding prognosis and preferences for end-of-life care. Aim: To examine clinicians’ practices, expectations, and personal level of confidence in discussing goals of care and providing end-of-life care to their patients with heart failure. Design: Multi-site clinician survey. Setting and Participants: Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, USA) and its surrounding health system were asked to participate in an electronic survey in October 2013. Tertiary Care Cardiology, Community Cardiology, and Primary Care clinicians were surveyed. Results: A total of 95 clinicians participated (52.5% response rate). Only 12% of clinicians reported having annual end-of-life discussions as advocated by the American Heart Association. In total, 52% of clinicians hesitated to discuss end-of-life care citing provider discomfort (11%), perception of patient (21%) or family (12%) unreadiness, fear of destroying hope (9%), or lack of time (8%). Tertiary and Community Cardiology clinicians (66%) attributed responsibility for end-of-life discussions to the heart failure cardiologist, while 66% of Primary Care clinicians felt it was their responsibility. Overall, 30% of clinicians reported a low or very low level of confidence in one or more of the following: initiating prognosis or end-of-life discussions, enrolling patients in hospice, or providing end-of-life care. Most clinicians expressed interest in further skills acquisition. Conclusion: Clinicians vary in their views and approaches to end-of-life discussions and care. Some lack confidence and most are interested in further skills acquisition.

Cancer after heart transplant is recognized as a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. A man's clinical course after receiving a heart transplant is described, with emphasis on important clinical considerations in the care of heart transplant recipients.