Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge-to-Transplant Candidacy: When Does It Work?

Durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) devices can be offered as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) or as a bridge-to-candidacy (BTC) strategy for candidates with contraindications to transplant listing, including pulmonary hypertension (BTC-PH), morbid obesity (BTC-Obes), social issues (BTC-Soc), or chronic illness (BTC-Illness). An understanding of the trajectory of BTC patients could guide future triage of advanced heart failure patients who are not candidates for transplantation. We performed a retrospective review all patients who underwent dMCS implantation as either BTT (206 patients) or BTC (114 patients) at our center from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020. There was no significant difference in mortality between BTC patients and BTT patients. Compared with the BTT group, significantly more patients in the BTC-PH group were transplanted (81% vs. 63%; p < 0.05) and significantly fewer patients in the BTC-Obes group (44%; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc group (39%; p < 0.05) were transplanted. Additionally, the readmission rate was higher for those in the BTC-Obes (6.2 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc (3.9 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) groups. Bridge-to-candidacy patients generally had poorer post-dMCS trajectories than BTT patients. Centers should not be dissuaded from pursuing a BTC strategy for qualified patients; however, careful consideration of potential adverse outcomes is necessary.

The Impact of a High-risk Psychosocial Assessment on Outcomes After Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Patient adherence is vital to the success of durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and the pre-MCS assessment of adherence by the multidisciplinary advanced heart failure team is a critical component of the evaluation. We assessed the impact of a high-risk psychosocial assessment before durable MCS implantations on post-MCS outcomes. Between January 2010 and April 2018, 319 patients underwent durable MCS at our center. We excluded those who died or were transplanted before discharge. The remaining 203 patients were grouped by pre-MCS psychosocial assessment: high-risk (26; 12.8%) versus acceptable risk (177; 87.2%). We compared clinical characteristics, nonadherence, and outcomes between groups. High-risk patients were younger (48 vs. 56; p = 0.006) and more often on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at durable MCS placement (26.9% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.007). These patients had a higher incidence of post-MCS nonadherence including missed clinic appointments, incorrect medication administration, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 months, 100% of high-risk patients had unplanned hospitalizations compared with 76.8% of acceptable-risk patients. Per year, high-risk patients had a median of 2.9 hospitalizations per year vs. 1.2 hospitalizations per year in acceptable-risk patients. While not significant, there were more driveline infections over the follow-up period in high-risk patients (27% vs. 14.7%), deaths (27% vs. 18%), and fewer heart transplants (53.8% vs. 63.8%).The pre-MCS psychosocial assessment is associated with post-MCS evidence of nonadherence and unplanned hospitalizations. Attention to pre-MCS assessment of psychosocial risk factors is essential to optimize durable MCS outcomes.

The impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life, morbidity, and mortality in heart failure: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the impact of antidepressants on depressive symptom severity, quality of life (QoL), morbidity, and mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, studies published from December 1969 to December 2019 that pertain to depression and HF were identified through the use of the PubMed and PsycINFO databases, using the keywords: 'antidepressant*' and 'heart failure.' Two authors independently conducted a focused analysis and reached a final consensus on 17 studies that met the specific selection criteria and passed the study quality checks. RESULTS: Studies varied in types of antidepressants used as well as in study designs. Ten studies were analyzed for the impact of antidepressant medications on depressive symptom severity. Five of these were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), out of which sertraline and paroxetine showed a significant reduction in depressive symptoms despite the small samples utilized. Four of the 17 studies addressed QoL as part of their outcomes showing no difference for escitalopram (RCT), significantly greater improvements for paroxetine controlled release (RCT), statistical significance for sertraline compared to control (pilot study), and showing significant improvement before and after treatment (open-label trial) for nefazodone. Thirteen of the 17 studies included measures of morbidity and mortality. Although early analyses have pointed to an association of antidepressant use and mortality particularly with fluoxetine, the reviewed studies showed no increase in mortality for antidepressants, and secondary analyses showed improved mortality in patients who achieved remission of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Out of the various antidepressants studied, which included sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, bupropion, nefazodone, and nortriptyline, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to be a safe treatment option for patients with depression and HF. However, due to the variety of study designs as well as the mixed results for each antidepressant, more information for reducing depression severity, morbidity, and mortality and improving quality of life in patients with HF should be examined using robust large sample RCTs.