Destination ventricular assist devices for heart failure #205

Inpatient rehabilitation outcomes for patients receiving left ventricular assist device

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients participating in inpatient rehabilitation program after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

DESIGN

Medical records of 94 patients who received LVADs between January 1, 2008, and June 30, 2010, at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data, and inpatient rehabilitation functional outcomes were measured by the Functional Independence Measure scale.

RESULTS

After successful implantation of LVAD, the patients were either discharged directly home from acute care (44%) or admitted to inpatient rehabilitation (56%). The patients admitted to inpatient rehabilitation were older than those discharged home. They were also more medically complex and more likely to have the LVAD placed as destination therapy. At discharge, significant improvement occurred in 17 of the 18 activities evaluated by the Functional Independence Measure scale. The mean total Functional Independence Measure scale score at admission was 77.1 compared with a score of 95.2 at discharge (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately half of the patients who received LVAD therapy were admitted in the inpatient rehabilitation. After the implantation of LVAD and inpatient rehabilitation, significant functional improvements were observed. Further studies addressing the role of inpatient rehabilitation for LVAD patients are warranted.

The use of advance directives among patients with left ventricular assist devices

Patients who undergo implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) often have improved quality of life, but may eventually succumb to their heart failure and/or sustain LVAD-related complications. In end-of-life situations, decisions must be made about when to deactivate LVAD support. Previous studies have demonstrated that end-of-life planning, particularly with the use of advance directives (ADs), can clarify patients' end-of-life preferences when they are unable to speak for themselves. However, many patients do not have ADs, and among patients who do, the ADs may lack useful information on how to guide care surrogates and clinicians regarding patients' preferences on life-sustaining treatments. The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of 68 patients with advanced heart failure (56 men [82%]; mean [standard deviation] age, 59.0 ± 12.2 years) who underwent LVAD implantation between March 2003 and January 2009. The indication for the LVAD was destination therapy in 36 (53%) patients and bridge to heart transplant in 32 (47%) patients. Overall, 32 (47%) patients had ADs of varying types; 25 (78%) ADs were completed before LVAD implantation. Although life-sustaining treatments (eg, tube feeding, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, and hemodialysis) were mentioned, none explicitly mentioned the LVAD or withdrawal of LVAD support at the end of life. We hypothesize that if instructions regarding LVAD management in ADs are explicit, surrogate and clinician distress may decrease, and ethical dilemmas may be avoided.

Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit of proactive palliative medicine consultation for delineation of goals of care and quality-of-life preferences before implantation of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy (DT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the cases of patients who received DT between January 15, 2009, and January 1, 2010.

RESULTS

Of 19 patients identified, 13 (68%) received proactive palliative medicine consultation. Median time of palliative medicine consultation was 1 day before DT implantation (range, 5 days before to 16 days after). Thirteen patients (68%) completed advance directives. The DT implantation team and families reported that preimplantation discussions and goals of care planning made postoperative care more clear and that adverse events were handled more effectively. Currently, palliative medicine involvement in patients receiving DT is viewed as routine by cardiac care specialists.

CONCLUSION

Proactive palliative medicine consultation for patients being considered for or being treated with DT improves advance care planning and thus contributes to better overall care of these patients. Our experience highlights focused advance care planning, thorough exploration of goals of care, and expert symptom management and end-of-life care when appropriate.

Ethical analysis of withdrawing ventricular assist device support

OBJECTIVE

To describe a series of patients with heart failure supported with a ventricular assist device (VAD) who requested (or whose surrogates requested) withdrawal of VAD support and the legal and ethical aspects pertaining to these requests.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, from March 1, 2003, through January 31, 2009, who requested (or whose surrogates requested) withdrawal of VAD support and for whom the requests were fulfilled. We then explored the legal and ethical permissibility of carrying out such requests.

RESULTS

The median age of the 14 patients identified (13 men, 1 woman) was 57 years. Requests were made by 2 patients and 12 surrogates. None of the patients' available advance directives mentioned the VAD. For 11 patients, multidisciplinary care conferences were held before withdrawal of VAD support. Only 1 patient had an ethics consultation. All 14 patients died within 1 day of withdrawal of VAD support.

CONCLUSION

Patients have the right to refuse or request the withdrawal of any unwanted treatment, and we argue that this right extends to VAD support. We also argue that the cause of death in these cases is the underlying heart disease, not assisted suicide or euthanasia. Therefore, patients with heart failure supported with VADs or their surrogates may request withdrawal of this treatment. In our view, carrying out such requests is permissible in accordance with the principles that apply to withdrawing other life-sustaining treatments.