REVIVAL of the Sex Disparities Debate: Are Women Denied, Never Referred, or Ineligible for Heart Replacement Therapies?

Variation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Postdischarge Caregiver Requirements: Results From a Mixed-Methods Study With Equity Implications

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) evaluation includes a psychosocial assessment, conducted by social workers (SWs) on the advanced heart failure multidisciplinary team. Postdischarge caregiving plans are central to psychosocial evaluation. Caregiving's relationship with LVAD outcomes is mixed, and testing patients' social resources may disadvantage those from historically undertreated groups. We describe variation in policies defining adequate caregiving plans post-LVAD implant and possible impacts on patients from marginalized groups.

METHODS

This was a 2-phase sequential mixed-methods study: (1) phase 1, survey of US-based LVAD SWs, describing assessment structure and policies guiding candidacy outcomes; and (2) phase 2, individual interviews with SWs to further describe how caregiving plan adequacy impacts LVAD candidacy.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven SWs returned surveys (rr=47%) from unique programs. Caregiving plan inadequacy (n=30) was the most common psychosocial dealbreaker. When asked what duration of caregiving is required, 23% indicated ≥3 months, 27% 4 to 12 weeks, and 30% <4 weeks. Two reported no duration requirement, 6 stated an indefinite 24/7 commitment was necessary. Across 22 interviews, SWs mirrored that caregiving plans were the most common psychosocial contraindication. How caregiving is operationalized varied. Participants voiced a tension between extended caregiving improving outcomes and the sense that some people of color, women, or low socioeconomic status patients struggle to meet stringent requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

Policies regarding adequate duration of 24/7 caregiving vary, but inadequate caregiving plans are the most common psychosocial contraindication. Participants worry about patients' ability to meet restrictive requirements, particularly from historically undertreated groups. This highlights a need to operationalize quality caregiving, standardize assessment, and support medically appropriate patients with strained social resources.

An Analysis by the European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe Outlining the International Landscape of Donors and Recipients Sex in Solid Organ Transplantation

Discrepancies in donation and transplantation by sex and gender have previously been reported. However, whether such differences are invariably the inevitable, unintended outcome of a legitimate process has yet to be determined. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) is the committee that actively promotes the development of ethical, quality and safety standards in the field of transplantation in Europe. Whilst the ultimate objective is to shed light on the processes underlying potential gender inequities in transplantation, our initial goal was to represent the distribution by sex among organ donors and recipients in the CD-P-TO Member States and observer countries. Our survey confirms previous evidence that, in most countries, men represent the prevalent source of deceased donors (63.3% in 64 countries: 60.7% and 71.9% for donation after brain and circulatory death, respectively). In contrast, women represent the leading source of organs recovered from living kidney and liver donors (61.1% and 51.2% in 55 and 32 countries, respectively). Across countries, most recovered organs are transplanted into men (65% in 57 countries). These observations may be explained, at least in part, by the higher burden of certain diseases in men, childbearing related immune sensitization in women, and donor-recipient size mismatch. Future research should establish whether gender-related socially-constructed roles and socioeconomic status may play a detrimental role reducing the access of women to transplantation.

Exploring gender differences in trajectories of clinical markers and symptoms after left ventricular assist device implantation

AIMS

Despite well-known gender differences in heart failure, it is unknown if clinical markers and symptoms differ between women and men after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Our aim was to examine gender differences in trajectories of clinical markers (echocardiographic markers and plasma biomarkers) and symptoms from pre- to post-LVAD implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a secondary analysis of data collected from a study of patients from pre- to 1, 3, and 6 months post-LVAD implantation. Data were collected on left ventricular internal end-diastolic diameter (LVIDd) and ejection fraction (LVEF), plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and soluble suppressor of tumorigenicity (sST2). Physical and depressive symptoms were measured using the Heart Failure Somatic Perception Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9, respectively. Latent growth curve modelling was used to compare trajectories between women and men. The average age of the sample (n = 98) was 53.3 ± 13.8 years, and most were male (80.6%) and had non-ischaemic aetiology (65.3%). Pre-implantation, women had significantly narrower LVIDd (P < 0.001) and worse physical symptoms (P = 0.041) compared with men. Between pre- and 6 months post-implantation, women had an increase in plasma sST2 followed by a decrease, whereas men had an overall decrease (slope: P = 0.014; quadratic: P = 0.011). Between 1 and 6 months post-implantation, women had a significantly greater increase in LVEF (P = 0.045) but lesser decline in plasmoa NT-proBNP compared with men (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Trajectories of clinical markers differed somewhat between women and men, but trajectories of symptoms were similar, indicating some physiologic but not symptomatic gender differences in response to LVAD.

Systematizing Heart Failure Population Health

Population health and population health management of patients with heart failure aim to identify all patients with the condition in a population, to characterize and risk stratify subgroups of patients, to improve care delivery by leveraging technology and data so providers can improve care coordination, to engage disease management programs, and to create cost-effective health systems that reduce financial burden on patients and providers. This requires a shift in our treatment paradigm from reactive treatment to proactive primary and secondary prevention. Shifts from fee-for-service to value-based payment models promise to encourage population health.