Wordingham, Sara E.

Background: Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy (DT-LVAD) have been shown to decrease mortality compared with medical management, and can improve quality of life for many patients with advanced heart failure. However, while most patients live longer with DT-LVAD than they would have with medical therapy, deaths still occur. We sought to systematically examine the end-of-life care of patients who died with a DT-LVAD at a single center. Methods: All patients undergoing DT-LVAD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2007 through September 30, 2014 who subsequently died prior to July 1, 2015 were included. The cause of death was determined based on review of documentation in the electronic medical record, including autopsy reports, death certificates and clinical notes. Details about palliative care consultations, hospice enrollment, hospitalizations, and device deactivation at the end-of-life were obtained from the electronic medical record. Results: Of 89 patients that died with a DT-LVAD (84 HeartMate II, 3 HeartWare, 2 Heartmate XVE, mean age at death 66.1 years), the mean (standard deviation) time from LVAD implantation to death was 2.0 (1.9) years. The most common causes of death were multiorgan failure (25.9%), hemorrhagic stroke (24.7%), and progressive heart failure (20.0%). Nearly half (45.6%) of patients saw palliative care in consultation within a month prior to death. However, only 13 (15.5%) patients enrolled in hospice a median of 11 (range 1-315) days prior to death, including 4 patients with concurrent cancer, 2 with stroke, and 7 with multiorgan failure. The vast majority of patients (78.6%) died in the hospital, and of those hospitalized at death, 87.7% died in the intensive care unit. Most patients hospitalized at death transitioned to a comfort-directed approach to care within 24 hours of dying. In total, 43 (48.3%) patients had their LVAD deactivated prior to death, with all but 3 undergoing deactivation in the hospital. The vast majority of patients died within an hour of LVAD deactivation, and all within 26 hours. Conclusions: In contrast to the general heart failure population, most patients with DT-LVAD die in the hospital and very few enroll in hospice. A significant body of research has demonstrated that patients who die in the intensive care unit and the hospital, as opposed to home or with hospice assistance, experience worse quality of life, quality of death and caregiver outcomes. Potential reasons that patients with DT-LVAD may experience different end-of-life care than other patients with heart failure exist, including that they often experience sudden changes in health status prior to death from acute events such as hemorrhagic stroke. However, further work is needed to understand these differences and to determine whether patients with DT-LVAD are receiving optimal end-of-life care.

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.

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.

Summary: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) can be associated with a high level of symptom burden from the disease as well as its treatment. Involvement of palliative care (PC) services may help facilitate discussion regarding goals of care, prognostic planning, and treatment options focused on improving quality of life (QOL). Background: PC is active total care of a patient whose disease is not fully responsive to curative therapies, with symptom control as the top priority. After a life-limiting diagnosis is made, health care teams and patients determine prognosis, whether cure is attainable or reasonable, what treatment options are available, risks and benefits of associated treatments, and how treatment or nontreatment will impact QOL and survival. QOL is often the focus of palliative interventions, with the goal to minimize symptoms and empower patients with accurate information to help affirm life and meet objectives of care. Implications for clinicians: PC can begin at the onset of symptoms in a disease that cannot be cured. Early PC may help facilitate discussion regarding goals of care when patient expectations are discordant with prognosis. While PC is a responsibility of all clinicians, subspecialist assistance can be helpful when a clinical decline occurs, in the setting of uncertainty, when patients are removed from the transplant list, or when long-term QOL issues are present. Conclusion: Communication with patients who have PH can be delicate and requires an understanding of the disease's process, trajectory, and prognosis. PC teams possess communication skills that may benefit patients and providers with QOL optimization, delivery of difficult news, advanced care planning, and shared decision-making.

Background— Despite the ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVAD) to prolong survival for many patients with advanced heart failure, little is known about the eventual end-of-life care that patients with DT-LVAD receive. Methods and Results— All patients undergoing DT-LVAD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2007, to September 30, 2014, who subsequently died before July 1, 2015, were included. Information about end-of-life care was obtained from documentation in the electronic medical record. Of 89 patients who died with a DT-LVAD, the median (25th–75th percentile) time from left ventricular assist device implantation to death was 14 (4–31) months. The most common causes of death were multiorgan failure (26%), hemorrhagic stroke (24%), and progressive heart failure (21%). Nearly half (46%) of the patients saw palliative care within 1 month before death; however, only 13 (15%) patients enrolled in hospice a median 11 (range 1–315) days before death. Most patients (78%) died in the hospital, of which 88% died in the intensive care unit. In total, 49 patients had their left ventricular assist device deactivated before death, with all but 3 undergoing deactivation in the hospital. Most patients died within an hour of left ventricular assist device deactivation and all within 26 hours. Conclusions— In contrast to the general heart failure population, most patients with DT-LVAD die in the hospital and few use hospice. Further work is needed to understand these differences and to determine whether patients with DT-LVAD are receiving optimal end-of-life care.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is an important and complex treatment modality for a variety of hematologic malignancies and some solid tumors. Although outcomes of patients who have undergone HCT and require care in intensive care units (ICUs) have improved over time, mortality rates remain high and there are significant associated costs. Lack of a team-based approach to care, especially during critical illness, is detrimental to patient autonomy and satisfaction, and to team morale, ultimately leading to poor quality of care. In this manuscript, we describe the case of a patient who had undergone HCT and was in the ICU setting, where inconsistent team interaction among the various stakeholders delivering care resulted in a lack of shared goals and poor outcomes. Team cognition is cognitive processing at the team level through interactions among team members and is reflected in dynamic communication and coordination behaviors. Although the patient received multidisciplinary care as needed in a medically complicated case, a lack of team cognition and, particularly, inconsistent communication among the dynamic teams caring for the patient, led to mixed messages being delivered with high-cost implications for the health-care system and the family. This article highlights concepts and recommendations that begin a necessary in-depth assessment of implications for clinical care and initiate a research agenda that examines the effects of team cognition on HCT teams, and, more generally, critical care of the patient with cancer.