Cardiac resynchronization therapy and automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators in the treatment of heart failure: a review article.

PURPOSE: To review the use of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and automatic implantable cardiac defibrillators (AICDs) in heart failure (HF) patients. DATA SOURCES: Selected scientific literature. CONCLUSIONS: New developments in device therapy for HF patients are helping to decrease morbidity and mortality in this challenging patient population. CRT improves left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, quality of life, 6-min walk distances, and New York Heart Association scores in select patients. AICDs can prevent sudden cardiac death in those who have LV dysfunction and are at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Cardiac devices are now becoming a standard of care for those with HF who meet certain criteria. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite advances in medical therapy for treating LV dysfunction, newly diagnosed patients face a 50% mortality rate in 5 years. The natural history of HF leads to continual deterioration of function unless adverse cardiac remodeling is reversed. Until recently, the only means for improving symptoms and cardiac function has been through the optimization of standard medicines that are indicated for LV dysfunction, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers. However, not all patients benefit from medical management alone. Cardiac devices may now be considered when significant symptoms persist after standard medicines are optimized. When practitioners use a multiple-modality approach, careful patient selection based on the inclusion criteria used in the trials outlined in this article will likely lead to improved management of those with LV dysfunction.

End-of-life decision making and implementation in recipients of a destination left ventricular assist device.

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as destination therapy (DT) is increasing and has proven beneficial in prolonging survival and improving quality of life in select patients with end-stage heart failure. Nonetheless, end-of-life (EOL) issues are inevitable and how to approach them underreported. METHODS: Our DT data registry was queried for eligible patients, defined as those individuals who actively participated in EOL decision making. The process from early EOL discussion to palliation and death was reviewed. We recorded the causes leading to EOL discussion, time from EOL decision to withdrawal and from withdrawal to death, and location. Primary caregivers were surveyed to qualify their experience and identify themes relevant to this process. RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2009, 92 DT LVADs were implanted in 69 patients. Twenty patients qualified for inclusion (mean length of support: 833 days). A decrease in quality of life from new/worsening comorbidities usually prompted EOL discussion. Eleven patients died at home, 8 in the hospital and 1 in a nursing home. Time from EOL decision to LVAD withdrawal ranged from <1 day to 2 weeks and from withdrawal until death was <20 minutes in all cases. Palliative care was provided to all patients. Ongoing assistance from the healthcare team facilitated closure and ensured comfort at EOL. CONCLUSIONS: With expanding indications and improved technology, more DT LVADs will be implanted and for longer durations, and more patients will face EOL issues. A multidisciplinary team approach with protocols involving DT patients and their families in EOL decision making allows for continuity of care and ensures dignity and comfort at EOL.