Assessing palliative care need in left ventricular assist device patients and heart transplant recipients

Clinical Recommendations for Improving Palliative Nursing Care for Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device

Nurses who care for patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) are highly skilled clinicians who manage unique technological demands and complex complications within this specialized patient population. There is a demonstrated need and benefit for palliative care for patients with a LVAD, yet palliative consults are often underused, and the quality of consultation for these patients is poorly understood. Rarely, if at all, do nurses receive formal training on how to navigate the palliative care needs of patients with a LVAD, which includes preparedness planning, caregiver support, device/body image acceptance, and end-of-life care. In addition, there is a need for literature to address specifically how nurses in their role and scope of practice can improve palliative care for patients with a LVAD. The purpose of this article was to present recommendations to equip palliative care nurses to best serve the needs of patients with a LVAD, wherein they can partner with and advance their colleagues in cardiology to improve their delivery of primary palliative care.

Symptom burden, psychosocial distress and palliative care needs in heart failure - A cross-sectional explorative pilot study

BACKGROUND

Beyond guideline-directed treatments aimed at improving cardiac function and prognosis in heart failure (HF), patient-reported outcomes have gained attention.

PURPOSE

Using a cross-sectional approach, we assessed symptom burden, psychosocial distress, and potential palliative care (PC) needs in patients with advanced stages of HF.

METHODS

At a large tertiary care center, we enrolled HF patients in an exploratory pilot study. Symptom burden and psychosocial distress were assessed using the MIDOS (Minimal Documentation System for Patients in PC) questionnaire and the Distress Thermometer (DT), respectively. The 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) was used to screen for anxiety and depression. To assess PC needs, physicians used the "Palliative Care Screening Tool for HF Patients".

RESULTS

We included 259 patients, of whom 137 (53%) were enrolled at the Heart Failure Unit (HFU), and 122 (47%) at the outpatient clinic (OC). Mean age was 63 years, 72% were male. New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms were present in 56%. With a mean 5-year survival 64% (HFU) vs. 69% (OC) calculated by the Seattle Heart Failure Model, estimated prognosis was comparatively good. Symptom burden (MIDOS score 8.0 vs. 5.4, max. 30 points, p < 0.001) and level of distress (DT score 6.0 vs. 4.8, max. 10 points, p < 0.001) were higher in hospitalised patients. Clinically relevant distress was detected in the majority of patients (HFU 76% vs. OC 57%, p = 0.001), and more than one third exhibited at least mild symptoms of depression or anxiety. Screening for PC needs revealed 82% of in- and 52% of outpatients fulfil criteria for specialized palliative support.

CONCLUSION

Despite a good prognosis, we found multiple undetected and unaddressed needs in an advanced HF cohort. This study's tools and screening results may help to early explore these needs, to further improve integrated HF care.

Inpatient Specialist Palliative Care in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVAD): A Retrospective Case Series

Background

Repeat hospitalizations, complications, and psychosocial burdens are common in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). Specialist palliative care (sPC) involvement supports patients during decision-making until end-of-life. In the United States, guidelines recommend early specialist palliative care (esPC) involvement prior to implantation. Yet, data about sPC and esPC involvement in Europe are scarce.

Materials and Methods

This is a retrospective descriptive study of deceased LVAD patients who had received sPC during their LVAD-related admissions to two university hospitals in Duesseldorf, Germany and Basel, Switzerland from 2010 to 2021. The main objectives were to assess: To which extent have LVAD patients received sPC, how early is sPC involved? What are the characteristics of those, how did sPC take place and what are key challenges in end-of-life care?

Results

In total, 288 patients were implanted with a LVAD, including 31 who received sPC (11%). Twenty-two deceased LVAD patients (19 male) with sPC were included. Mean patient age at the time of implantation was 67 (range 49–79) years. Thirteen patients (59%) received LVAD as destination therapy, eight patients (36%) were implanted as bridge to transplantation (BTT), and one as an emergency LVAD after cardiogenic shock (5%). None of the eight BTT patients received a heart transplantation before dying. Most (n = 13) patients lived with their family and mean Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three. Mean time between LVAD implantation and first sPC contact was 1.71 years, with a range of first sPC contact from 49 days prior to implantation to more than 6 years after. Two patients received esPC before implantation. In Duesseldorf, mean time between first sPC contact and in-hospital death was 10.2 (1–42) days. In Basel, patients died 16 (0.7–44) months after first sPC contact, only one died on the external sPC unit. Based on thorough examination of two case reports, we describe key challenges of sPC in LVAD patients including the necessity for sPC expertise, ethical and communicative issues as well as the available resources in this setting.

Conclusion

Despite unequivocal recommendations for sPC in LVAD patients, the integration of sPC for these patients is yet not well established.