The effect of clinical variables on distress and depressive symptoms among heart transplant recipients

Screening for Emotional Distress in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this article, we discuss the relationship between emotional distress and common cardiovascular disease condition, including coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, mechanical circulatory support, and heart transplant. We review screening measures that have been studied and used in clinical practice for each condition, as well as priorities for future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies consistently demonstrate failing to identify and treat emotional distress in patients with cardiovascular disease is associated with adverse outcomes. However, routine emotional distress screening is not formally recommended for all cardiovascular disease conditions and is limited to depression screening in select patient populations. Future research should focus on evaluating the validity and reliability of standardized screening measures across the scope of emotional distress in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease. Other areas of future research include implementation of evidence-based pharmaceutical treatments and integrated behavioral health approaches and interventions.

The impact of depression on heart transplant outcomes: A retrospective single-center cohort study

BACKGROUND

Depression is prevalent in patients with heart failure and after heart transplant. We identified the prevalence of pre- and post-transplant depression and its association with clinical characteristics and post-transplant outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 114 adults transplanted 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2015 and identified patients with pre- and post-transplant depression. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Of 114 patients, 35.1% had pre-transplant depression and 26.3% had post-transplant depression. Patients with post-transplant depression within the first year were significantly more likely to have acute rejection (10% vs 0%), longer intensive care unit (11.7 days vs 7.8 days) and hospital stay (31.7 days vs 16.3 days), and discharge to inpatient rehabilitation (26.7% vs 8.3%). Patients with post-transplant depression within the first year had significantly higher 5-year mortality (30% vs 9.5%, p = .009). However, after adjustment for total artificial heart/biventricular assist device, acute rejection, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay, this relationship was no longer significant (HR 2.11; 95% CI 0.18-25.27; p = .556).

CONCLUSIONS

Depression is common among heart transplant candidates and recipients. While pre-transplant depression did not impact outcomes, patients with post-transplant depression were more likely to have had a complicated course, suggesting the need for increased vigilance regarding depression in such patients.

Self-efficacy, recovery and psychological wellbeing one to five years after heart transplantation: a Swedish cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Self-efficacy refers to a person´s confidence in carrying out treatment-related activities and constitutes the foundation of self-management as well as long-term follow-up after heart transplantation. Exploring the heart recipients´ experiences by means of self-report instruments provides healthcare professionals with valuable information on how to supply self-management support after heart transplantation.

AIMS

The aim was to explore self-efficacy in relation to the self-reported level of recovery and psychological wellbeing, among adult heart recipients, one to 5 years after transplantation.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study includes 79 heart recipients, due for follow-up one to 5 years after transplantation. Three different self-assessment instruments were employed: the self-efficacy for managing chronic disease 6-item scale; the postoperative recovery profile; and the psychological general wellbeing instrument.

RESULTS

The reported level of self-efficacy was high (median 8.3, maximum score 10). Significantly higher self-efficacy was seen among those who had returned to work (P = 0.003) and those without pre-transplant mechanical circulatory support (P = 0.033). In total, 65.5% (n = 52) reported being reasonably recovered, while 18.8% (n = 12) were not recovered. The median total psychological general wellbeing score was 108 (P25 = 24, P75 = 117), suggesting overall good psychological wellbeing in the whole group of heart recipients.

CONCLUSION

The heart transplant recipients in our study had an overall high level of self-efficacy. Low self-efficacy was found among those with a low self-reported level of recovery, pre-transplant treatment with mechanical circulatory support or who had not returned to work. This is important information for transplant professionals when helping heart recipients to balance their expectations about recovery.