Changes in disease-specific versus generic health status measures after left ventricular assist device implantation: Insights from INTERMACS

Association of Novel Ventricular Assist Device Self-report Measures With Overall Health-Related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Few study authors examined factors influencing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) early after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether 5 novel self-report measures and other variables were significantly associated with overall HRQOL at 3 months after LVAD surgery.

METHODS

Patients were recruited between October 26, 2016, and February 29, 2020, from 12 US sites. Data were collected before LVAD implantation and at 3 months post LVAD implantation. Overall HRQOL measures included the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) overall summary score (OSS) and EuroQol 5-dimension- 3L visual analog scale. Potential factors associated with overall HRQOL included 5 novel self-report measures (Satisfaction with Treatment, Being Bothered by VAD Self-care and Limitations, VAD Team Communication, Self-efficacy regarding VAD Self-care, and Stigma), and demographic and clinical characteristics. Statistics included regression analyses.

RESULTS

Of enrollees, 242 completed self-report measures at baseline, and 142 completed measures 3 months postoperatively. Patients were 55 ± 13 years old, with 21% female, 24% non-White, 39% high school or lower educated, and 47% destination therapy. Using the KCCQ-12 OSS, higher Satisfaction with Treatment was associated with a higher KCCQ-12 OSS; Being Bothered by VAD Self-care and Limitations, high school or lower education, chest incision pain, cardiac dysrhythmias within 3 postoperative months, and peripheral edema were associated with a worse KCCQ-12 OSS (R2 = 0.524). Factors associated with a worse 3-month EuroQol 5-dimension-3L visual analog scale were female sex, adverse events within 3 months post implantation (cardiac dysrhythmias, bleeding, and venous thrombosis), and chest incision pain (R2 = 0.229). No factors were associated with a higher EuroQol 5-dimension-3L visual analog scale score at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Two novel measures, demographics, postimplantation adverse events, and symptoms were associated with post-LVAD KCCQ-12 OSS early after surgery.

Association of Psychosocial Risk Factors With Quality of Life and Readmissions 1 Year After LVAD Implantation

BACKGROUND

Among patients with advanced heart failure (HF), treatment with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We investigated the association between psychosocial risk factors, HRQOL and outcomes after LVAD implantation.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort (n = 9832) of adults aged ≥ 19 years who received durable LVADs between 2008 and 2017 was identified by using the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS). Patients were considered to have psychosocial risk factors if ≥ 1 of the following were present: (1) substance abuse; (2) limited social support; (3) limited cognitive understanding; (4) repeated nonadherence; and (5) major psychiatric disease. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were used to evaluate the association between psychosocial risk factors and change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)-12 scores from baseline to 1 year, persistently poor HRQOL (KCCQ-12 score < 45 at baseline and 1 year), and 1-year rehospitalization.

RESULTS

Among the final analytic cohort, 2024 (20.6%) patients had ≥ 1 psychosocial risk factors. Psychosocial risk factors were associated with a smaller improvement in KCCQ-12 scores from baseline to 1 year (mean ± SD, 29.1 ± 25.9 vs 32.6 ± 26.1; P = 0.015) for a difference of -3.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.88 to -1.13). Psychosocial risk factors were associated with persistently poor HRQOL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.74), and 1-year all-cause readmission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18). Limited social support, major psychiatric disorder and repeated nonadherence were associated with persistently poor HRQOL, while major psychiatric disorder was associated with 1-year rehospitalization.

CONCLUSION

The presence of psychosocial risk factors is associated with lower KCCQ-12 scores and higher risk for readmission at 1 year after LVAD implantation. These associations are statistically significant, but further research is needed to determine whether these differences are clinically meaningful.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in High-Risk Medical Device Registries: A Scoping Review

Little is known about the methods and outcomes of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) use among high-risk medical device registries. The objective of this scoping review was to assess the utility and predictive ability of PROMs in high-risk medical device registries. We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, APA PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases for published literature. After searching, 4323 titles and abstracts were screened, and 262 full texts were assessed for their eligibility. Seventy-six papers from across orthopedic (n = 64), cardiac (n = 10), penile (n = 1), and hernia mesh (n = 1) device registries were identified. Studies predominantly used PROMs as an outcome measure when comparing cohorts or surgical approaches (n = 45) or to compare time points (n = 13) including pre- and postintervention. Fifteen papers considered the predictive ability of PROMs. Of these, 8 treated PROMs as an outcome, 5 treated PROMs as a risk factor through regression analysis, and 2 papers treated PROMs as both a risk factor and as an outcome. One paper described PROMs to study implant survival. To advance methods of PROM integration into clinical decision-making for medical devices, an understanding of their use in high-risk device registries is needed. This scoping review found that there is a paucity of studies using PROMs to predict long-term patient and clinical outcomes in high-risk medical device registries. Determination as to why PROMs are rarely used for predictive purposes in long-term data collection is needed if PROM data are to be considered suitable as real-world evidence for high-risk device regulatory purposes, as well as to support clinical decision-making.

Level of Evidence 4

Patient reported outcomes measures are infrequently used in clinical studies of heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials in heart transplantation (HT) recipients have largely focused on objective outcomes such as survival; however, there is a paucity of data regarding the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in these studies. We aimed to characterize the use of PROMs in registered clinical studies of HT recipients.

METHODS

All clinical studies of adult HT recipients were queried from ClinicalTrials.gov and stratified by inclusion of PROMs. Studies reporting PROMs were identified via specific search terms using the "outcomes measures" field. Summary statistics compared characteristics of studies with and without PROMs.

RESULTS

Between November 1999 and August 2022, 227 studies of HT recipients were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. PROMs were included in 11% (n = 24/227) of studies. Studies reporting PROMs were more likely to be conducted outside of the United States (91.7% vs 54.2%, p < 0.001) and report a greater number of primary/secondary outcomes (PROMs: median 7 [interquartile ranges (IQR): 4, 9] vs no PROMs: median 3 [IQR: 2, 6]; p < 0.001). The majority of studies reporting PROMs (58.3%) were initiated after 2020. Twenty-one distinct PROM tools/domains were reported as outcome measures, with the Short Form Health Survey 36 being most frequently used (n = 10/24). Thirteen of the 21 PROMs included questions assessing mental health, whereas only 3 PROM tools were cardiac-specific.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 10 registered clinical trials of HT recipients includes PROMs, and mental health is the most commonly assessed PROM domain. Development and validation of PROM tools is needed to fully assess health-related quality of life in HT recipients.

Association Between Caregiver Burden and Patient Recovery After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Insights From Sustaining Quality of Life of the Aged: Heart Transplant or Mechanical Support

INTRODUCTION

After left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, caregivers may experience increasing burden because of new roles and responsibilities. We examined the association between caregiver burden at baseline and patient recovery after long-term LVAD implantation in patients ineligible for heart transplantation.

METHODS

Between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018, data from 60 patients with a long-term LVAD (age, 60-80 years) and caregivers through 1 postoperative year were analyzed. Caregiver burden was measured using the Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale, a validated instrument used for measuring caregiver burden. Patient recovery post-LVAD implantation was defined by change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) overall summary score and rehospitalizations over 1 year. Multivariable regression models (least-squares for change in KCCQ-12 and Fine-Gray cumulative incidence for rehospitalizations) were used to assess for association with caregiver burden.

RESULTS

Patients were 69.4 ± 5.5 years old, 85% men, and 90% White. Over the first year post-LVAD implantation, there was a 32% cumulative probability of rehospitalization; 72% (43/60) of patients had an improvement of ≥5 points in KCCQ-12 scores. Caregivers were 61.2 ± 11.5 years old, 93% women, 81% White, and 85% married. Median Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale Difficulty and Time scores at baseline were 1.13 and 2.27, respectively. Higher caregiver burden was not significantly associated with hospitalizations or change in patient health-related quality of life during the first year post-LVAD implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher caregiver burden at baseline was not associated with patient recovery in the first year after LVAD implantation. Understanding the associations between caregiver burden and patient outcomes after LVAD implantation is important as excessive caregiver burden is a relative contraindication for LVAD implantation.

The Impact of Cardiac Devices on Patients’ Quality of Life—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The implantation of cardiac devices significantly reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Arrhythmias as well as therapy delivered by the device may impact quality of life of patients concerned considerably. Therefore we aimed at conducting a systematic search and meta-analysis of trials examining the impact of the implantation of cardiac devices, namely implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD), pacemakers and left-ventricular assist devices (LVAD) on quality of life. After pre-registering the trial with the PROSPERO database, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane databases for relevant publications. Study quality was assessed by two independent reviewers using standardized protocols. A total of 37 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 trials were cohort trials while 6 trials used a randomized controlled design. We found large pre-post effect sizes for positive associations between quality of life and all types of devices. The effect sizes for LVAD, pacemaker and ICD patients were g = 1.64, g = 1.32 and g = 0.64, respectively. There was a lack of trials examining the effect of implantation on quality of life relative to control conditions. Trials assessing quality of life in patients with cardiac devices are still scarce. Yet, the existing data suggest beneficial effects of cardiac devices on quality of life. We recommend that clinical trials on cardiac devices routinely assess quality of life or other parameters of psychological well-being as a decisive study endpoint. Furthermore, improvements in psychological well-being should influence decisions about implantations of cardiac devices and be part of patient education and may impact shared decision-making.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Clinical findings associated with incomplete hemodynamic left ventricular unloading in patients with a left ventricular assist device

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The effect of a centrifugal continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) on hemodynamic left ventricular unloading (HLVU) and the clinical conditions that interfere with hemodynamic optimization are not well defined.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the likelihood of incomplete HLVU, defined as high pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (hPCWP)> 15mmHg in 104 ambulatory cfLVAD patients when the current standard recommendations for cfLVAD rotor speed setting were applied. We also evaluated the ability of clinical, hemodynamic and echocardiographic variables to predict hPCWP in ambulatory cfLVAD patients.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight percent of the patients showed hPCWP. The variables associated with a higher risk of hPCWP were age, central venous pressure, absence of treatment with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, and brain natriuretic peptide levels. Patients with optimal HLVU had a 15.2±14.7% decrease in postoperative indexed left ventricular end-diastolic diameter compared with 8.9±11.8% in the group with hPCWP (P=.041). Independent predictors of hPCWP included brain natriuretic peptide and age. Brain natriuretic peptide <300 pg/mL predicted freedom from hPCWP with a negative predictive value of 86% (P <.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An optimal HLVU can be achieved in up to 72% of the ambulatory cfLVAD patients when the current standard recommendations for rotor speed setting are applied. Age, central venous pressure and therapy with renin-angiotensin-aldosteron system inhibitors had a substantial effect on achieving this goal. Brain natriuretic peptide levels and the magnitude of reverse left ventricular remodeling seem to be useful noninvasive tools to evaluate HLVU in patients with functioning cfLVAD.

Utilization of Left Ventricular Assist Device for Congestive Heart Failure: Inputs on Demographic and Hospital Characterization From Nationwide Inpatient Sample

Objectives The first goal of the study is to provide a descriptive overview of the utilization of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) and determine the rates of LVAD use stratified by patients' demographic and hospitals' characteristics in the United States. Next, is to measure the hospitalization outcomes of length of stay (LOS) and cost in inpatients managed with LVAD. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using the nationwide inpatient sample and included 184,115 patients (age ≥65 years) with a primary discharge diagnosis of hypertensive and non-hypertensive CHF and was further classified by inpatients who were managed with LVAD. We compared the distributions of demographic and hospital characteristics in CHF inpatients with versus without LVAD by performing Pearson's chi-square test for categorical variables, and independent sample t-test for continuous variables. Results The inpatient utilization of LVAD was 0.93% (1690 out of 184,115) in CHF patients. The LVAD cohort were younger compared to non-LVAD group (mean age, 69.9 years vs. 79.4 years). The utilization rate of LVAD was also almost four times higher in males (1.50%) compared to females (0.36%). Although whites (78.5%) accounted for majority of LVAD recipients, the rate of LVAD utilization was highest in blacks (1.04%) and lowest in Hispanics (0.58%) with whites having utilization rate of 0.89%. Medicare was the dominant primary payer to cover the LVAD inpatients (91.1%), though the rate of LVAD utilization is highest in private (2.22%) and lowest in those covered by public insurance (medicaid/medicare). CHF patients in public hospitals (1.79%) were more than twice more likely to receive LVAD than in private hospitals (0.83%) due to higher utilization rate. LVAD utilization rate was approximately 55 times higher in teaching hospitals (1.67%) compared to non-teaching hospitals (0.03%), and 20 times higher in large bed hospitals (1.41%) compared to small bed-size hospitals (0.07%). CHF patients that received LVAD had a significantly longer LOS (34.6 days vs 9.8 days) and higher inpatient treatment costs ($802,118 vs. $86,302) compared to non-LVAD group. Conclusion The inpatient utilization of LVAD was in CHF patients is higher in males, blacks and private health insurance beneficiaries. In terms of hospital characteristics, the utilization of LVAD for CHF management was higher in large bed sized, and public type and teaching hospitals compared to their counterparts. This data will allow us to devise strategies to improve LVAD utilization and increase its outreach for heart failure patients, especially those on the transplant waiting list. Despite its effectiveness, aggressive usage of LVAD is restricted due to cost-effectiveness and lack of technical confidence among medical professional due to complications.

Quality of Life Is Improved 1 Year After Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is increasingly important in the era of patient-centered outcomes and value-based reimbursement. However most follow-up is limited to 30 days, and long-term data on QoL improvement associated with symptom relief are lacking. Therefore we sought to analyze QoL after cardiac surgery in a nonemergent, all-comers population.

METHODS

Four hundred two patients undergoing routine cardiac surgery at 2 large urban hospitals in the Dallas, Texas area were enrolled. Follow-up was complete for 364 patients. Data were collected from August 2013 to January 2017. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire was administered at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year after surgery. Repeated-measures analysis was used for each domain of the questionnaire for all procedures and stratified by procedure. If time was found to be a significant factor, pairwise analysis was performed with P values adjusted using the Tukey-Kramer method.

RESULTS

There was a significant increase across all domains of Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores for all procedures and for most domains when stratifying by procedure. This increase in QoL was most marked after 1 month. All domain scores increased through 1 year except symptom stability, which peaked at 1 month postsurgery and then regressed at 1 year, suggesting an overall improvement and stabilization of symptoms. The occurrence of complications did not alter this trajectory.

CONCLUSIONS

QoL and other patient-centered outcomes are improved at 1 month and continue to improve throughout the year. Knowledge of these data is important for patient selection, fully informed consent, and shared decision-making.

A longitudinal comparison of health-related quality of life in rural and urban recipients of left ventricular assist devices

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are a common treatment for advanced heart failure (HF) to improve ventricular function, symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Many LVAD recipients travel long distances from rural areas for LVAD implantation and follow-up care. Individuals with HF in rural settings who have not undergone LVAD implantation have reported poor HRQOL. However, to date, no studies have compared HF-specific or generic HRQOL in rural and urban LVAD recipients. The purpose of this study was to compare generic and HF-specific HRQOL longitudinally from preimplantation to 1-, 3-, and 6- months postimplant in a cohort of rural and urban LVAD recipients (n = 95; rural n = 32 and urban n = 63). We measured generic HRQOL using the European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale and HF-specific HRQOL with the quality of life domain of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Latent growth curve modeling identified two phases of change in generic and HF-specific HRQOL: the initial response to LVAD between preimplantation and 1-month postimplant and the subsequent change between 1- and 6-months postimplant. Comparable improvements in generic HRQOL were noted in rural and urban LVAD recipients during both phases of change. Urban LVAD recipients had greater initial improvements in HF-specific HRQOL (KCCQ) compared with rural recipients (13.0 ± 5.6, p = .02), but subsequent improvements were similar among rural and urban recipients. Ongoing assessment of generic and HF-specific HRQOL is necessary during LVAD therapy.

Using left ventricular assist devices in advanced heart failure patients

Advanced Heart Failure (AHF) is a complex syndrome that affects the physiology of the heart to maintain efficient blood circulation resulting in multiorgan failure and, eventually, death. Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVADs) have become the cornerstone therapy for AHF patients, both as a bridge to transplantation and as a decisive therapy. Recently the results of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial were published. The trial compared HeartMate 3 LVAD with HeartMate II LVAD in a randomized trial in The Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3). Of 366 patients, 190 were assigned to the centrifugal-flow pump group (HeartMate 3) and 176 to the axial-flow (HeartMate II) pump group. In the intention-to-treat population, the primary end point occurred in 151 patients (79.5%) in the centrifugal-flow pump group, as compared with 106 (60.2%) in the axial-flow pump group (P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Reoperation for pump malfunction was less frequent in the centrifugal-flow pump group than in the axial-flow pump group (P < 0.001).The results of the MOMENTUM 3 Trial are a big achievement in the cardiovascular world. Any improvement in LVADs that reduces the risk of stroke, perhaps the most feared complication of these devices, would be meaningful. Besides, given the observed lower rate of pump thrombosis and reoperation for pump malfunction, it already seems likely that the HeartMate 3 will supplant the HeartMate II in clinical practice. In addition, the risks that are associated with reoperation undoubtedly counterbalanced any unintentional bias in performing that intervention.

Clinical implications of hemodynamic assessment during left ventricular assist device therapy

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) significantly improve outcomes of advanced heart failure patients. However, patients continue to have high readmission rates due to complications ranging from bleeding, thrombosis, heart failure, and infection. Considering that the hallmark benefit of LVAD therapy is improvement in hemodynamics (cardiac unloading and increased cardiac output), hemodynamic assessment on LVAD support is key to better understand these difficult complications and may serve as a tool to resolving them. In this review, we will discuss the hemodynamic changes following LVAD implantation, and the implications and prognostic impact of hemodynamic optimization on outcomes and complications.