McIlvennan, Colleen Kelley

ImportanceThe advanced ambulatory heart failure (HF) population comprises patients who have progressed beyond the pillars of recommended stage C HF therapies but can still find meaningful life-years ahead. Although these patients are commonly encountered in practice, national databases selectively capture the small groups accepted for heart transplant listing or left ventricular assist devices. The epidemiology, trajectories, and therapies for other ambulatory patients with advanced HF are poorly understood.ObservationsIn December 2022, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute convened a team of experts to identify knowledge gaps and research priorities for the ambulatory population with limiting daily symptoms and transition toward refractory end-stage D HF, designated as stage C2D. This article summarizes the findings from that 3-day workshop. Workshop participants surveyed the initial challenges and knowledge gaps for (1) recognition of ambulatory C2D HF, (2) estimation of the magnitude of the affected population and identifiable subpopulations, and (3) physiologic phenotypes, such as low cardiac output, right HF, cardiorenal syndromes, congestive hepatopathy and frailty, which offer distinct targets for existing and emerging therapies. Social drivers of HF and patient preferences for quality/length of survival were highlighted as essential modifiers for personalization of therapies.Conclusions and RelevanceTen key points summarized workshop findings, with target cohorts for study proposed as a crucial next step. This workshop summary is intended as a call for action to address knowledge gaps and develop new strategies to improve outcomes in the large ambulatory population with C2D HF.

BACKGROUND: Destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) is increasingly offered to patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. Implanting centers often require the identification of a dedicated caregiver prior to DT LVAD implantation; however, the caregiver experience surrounding this difficult decision is relatively unexplored. METHODS: Between October 2012 and July 2013, we conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews of caregivers to understand their experiences with decision making for loved ones considering and living with DT LVADs. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 caregivers: 16 caregivers of patients who had received a DT LVAD and 1 caregiver of a patient who had declined a DT LVAD. At the time of the caregiver interview, 10 DT LVAD patients were living and 7 were deceased. The majority were women (n=16) of whom 12 were either spouses or widows of the patients. Median age of caregivers was 65 (range 35-79). Twelve caregivers reported spending more than 8 hours per week caring for their loved one, and 14 attended regular medical appointments. Throughout the interviews, caregivers reported that DT LVAD was a complex decision making process with many inherent tensions. The themes identified are broadly interpreted under three domains: 1) the stark decision context with tension between hopes and realities, “when we first started out¼we had hopes of a transplant¼but once the lung function was done, and the kidneys ¼there was pretty much nothing. There was no hope other than the LVAD”; 2) the challenging decision process and the tension between wanting their loved ones to live, “I said ‘Well, I'll tell you what. I didn't marry you to be a young widow” and wanting to respect their loved ones’ wishes, “My thoughts were this was his life and it was his choice”; and 3) the downstream decision outcome and the tension between gratitude, “I'm just thankful to have my dad here¼” and a feeling of burden, “I've never felt caregiver was my gift¼I tend to feel like I'm being imposed upon at times.” CONCLUSIONS: Despite the promise of significantly improved survival for some patients, DT LVAD has major implications for caregives as well as patients. Decision making surrounding DT LVAD requires education of both the patient and caregiver of potential stresses. Additionally, decision-making surrounding DT LVAD should seek to incorporate decision support for patients and caregivers. This should include a focus on caregiver burden and the tensions that caregivers may experience.

Background: Destination therapy left ventricular assist devices (DT-LVADs) have become a treatment option for carefully selected patients with end-stage heart failure. Death is inevitable despite DT-LVAD, with 1-year mortality approximately 20% and median survival 5 years. However, end-of-life processes for LVAD patients vary significantly by institution, provider, and patient preference. Palliative care has played an increasing role in the care of this patient population, yet there remains little data on the most effective way to integrate palliative care and hospice in the DT-LVAD population. Therefore, we aimed to understand the end-of-life perspectives regarding LVADs among both cardiology and palliative care/hospice providers. Methods: Using internet-based, secure methods, we administered a 41-item survey via electronic mail to members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, European Society of Cardiology-Heart Failure Association, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, and the Heart Failure Society of America to assess their perspectives on end-of-life care in patients with LVADs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical data. Results: From October to November 2011, there were a total of 440 respondents (palliative care/hospice=137; cardiology=303). Most were physicians (80%; n=320) and male (59%; n=232). The majority of providers in both groups viewed an LVAD as a life-sustaining treatment. The groups differed in their attitudes, beliefs, and comfort with end-of-life care in patients with an LVAD. Few palliative care/hospice providers believed a patient needed to be imminently dying to turn off an LVAD; whereas most cardiology providers noted patients should be imminently dying in order to consider LVAD deactivation (2% vs 60%; p=<0.001). Most palliative care/hospice providers believed requests for turning off an LVAD in a patient who is not nearing death should be honored. In contrast, just over half of cardiology providers contended the request should be honored (88% vs 57%; p=<0.001). The provider groups also disagreed on requiring ethics consultation, with most cardiology providers stating it was necessary prior to turning off an LVAD near the end of life (67% vs 24%; p=<0.001). Conclusion: Cardiology providers and palliative care/hospice providers collectively have different perceptions on management of end of life in patients with an LVAD. Bridging the gaps between these two disciplines is a critical first step in creating a more cohesive approach to end-of-life care for these patients—one that honors autonomy but respects individual provider comfort levels.

Introduction: The DECIDE-LVAD Trial demonstrated the benefit of a decision support tool for patients considering destination-therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation. We hypothesized that patients with low health literacy or numeracy may have benefited most from the intervention. Methods: We used the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM-R) and the Subjective Numeracy Scale (SNS) to assess patients’ health literacy and numeracy, respectively. A REALM-R score of six or less out of eight identified patients at risk for poor literacy based on the original measure validation. An SNS score less than four out of six identified patients with poor subjective numeracy based on the mean score of the DECIDE-LVAD cohort. We assessed the effect of the decision support tool on LVAD knowledge and values-treatment concordance—concordance between patients’ stated values and their treatment outcome of LVAD or continued medical therapy—and their interaction with health literacy and numeracy. This interaction was assessed using linear mixed models for LVAD knowledge and the difference in Kendall’s tau correlation coefficient for values-treatment concordance. Results: Of the 248 DECIDE-LVAD patients, 228 with complete literacy and numeracy data were analyzed: 51% (116) had high literacy and numeracy; 18 (8%) had low literacy and high numeracy; 55 (25%) had high literacy and low numeracy; 39 (17%) had low scores for both measures. Average age was 63, 15% were female, 19% were racial/ethnic minorities. Patients with high scores for both measures were older, had more formal education, and higher total household income compared to the other 3 groups. Patients with low literacy and/or numeracy had significantly lower LVAD knowledge scores at baseline. In all groups, LVAD knowledge improved over time. The difference in LVAD knowledge between those with low literacy and high literacy decreased over time (baseline difference 9.4%, p=0.002; 6 month follow-up difference 1.4%, p=0.65). In those with high literacy, the decision support tool intervention increased the LVAD knowledge score by 4.2% relative to the control (p=0.15), while in those with low literacy, the intervention increased the score by 10.6% (p=0.04). For patients with low literacy, values-treatment concordance improved with use of the decision support tool (control vs. intervention tau: 0.234 vs 0.673, p=0.028). We did not observe differences in the effect of the intervention by participant numeracy score. Conclusion: All patient groups in the DECIDE-LVAD cohort of patients considering DT LVAD had improved LVAD knowledge with the use of the decision support tool. We did not observe a differential effect of the intervention by numeracy score. Compared to those with higher health literacy, patients with low health literacy improved their LVAD knowledge and values-treatment concordance after the intervention.

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.

Background. Despite demonstrated efficacy, patient decision aids (DAs) are rarely used in clinical practice in the absence of coverage mandates. Deciding whether to pursue a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a major, preference-sensitive decision—ideal for exploring implementation of a DA. Methods. We conducted a type II effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial at 6 LVAD programs using a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized design. Using the RE-AIM framework, we collected both quantitative and qualitative outcomes, including a checklist collected by study staff for each enrolled patient regarding DA use and interviews with LVAD program clinicians preintervention, 6 months postintervention, and at the conclusion of the study. Results. From June 2015 to January 2017, 248 patients and their caregivers were enrolled. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 48 clinicians at 3 time points. The DA reached 95% of eligible patients. Adoption was 100%, as all sites approached agreed to participate in the trial. Interviews revealed several themes related to the implementation of the DA: clinicians had a strong desire to ensure patients were informed and embraced the DA. Despite this, they reported communication challenges among their team that impeded implementation. Five of the 6 sites have maintained use of the DA following the trial; 1 site reported concerns about decreased procedural volume with use of the DA as a reason for discontinuation. Conclusions. In this hybrid trial, a DA for patients considering LVADs and their caregivers demonstrated high reach. Adoption and implementation were facilitated by a strong desire to ensure that patients were well informed. Future dissemination research and practice should attend to concerns about procedure volume and coverage mandates and facilitate ongoing communication at sites using the DA.

Background— Implanting centers often require the identification of a dedicated caregiver before destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) implantation; however, the caregiver experience surrounding this difficult decision is relatively unexplored. Methods and Results— From October 2012 through July 2013, we conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with caregivers of patients considering DT LVAD. Data were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. We interviewed 17 caregivers: 10 caregivers of patients living with DT LVAD, 6 caregivers of patients who had died with DT LVAD, and 1 caregiver of a patient who had declined DT LVAD. The themes identified, which could also be considered dialectical tensions, are broadly interpreted under 3 domains mapping to decision context, process, and outcome: (1) the stark decision context, with tension between hope and reality; (2) the challenging decision process, with tension between wanting loved ones to live and wanting to respect loved ones’ wishes; and (3) the downstream decision outcome, with tension between gratitude and burden. Conclusions— Decision-making surrounding DT LVAD should incorporate decision support for patients and caregivers. This should include a focus on caregiver burden and the predictable tensions that caregivers experience.