Caregiver Health-Related Quality of Life, Burden, and Patient Outcomes in Ambulatory Advanced Heart Failure: A Report From REVIVAL.

Background Heart failure (HF) imposes significant burden on patients and caregivers. Longitudinal data on caregiver health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and burden in ambulatory advanced HF are limited. Methods and Results Ambulatory patients with advanced HF (n=400) and their participating caregivers (n=95) enrolled in REVIVAL (Registry Evaluation of Vital Information for VADs [Ventricular Assist Devices] in Ambulatory Life) were followed up for 24 months, or until patient death, left ventricular assist device implantation, heart transplantation, or loss to follow-up. Caregiver HRQOL (EuroQol Visual Analog Scale) and burden (Oberst Caregiving Burden Scale) did not change significantly from baseline to follow-up. At time of caregiver enrollment, better patient HRQOL by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire was associated with better caregiver HRQOL (P=0.007) and less burden by both time spent (P<0.0001) and difficulty (P=0.0007) of caregiving tasks. On longitudinal analyses adjusted for baseline values, better patient HRQOL (P=0.034) and being a married caregiver (P=0.016) were independently associated with better caregiver HRQOL. Patients with participating caregivers (versus without) were more likely to prefer left ventricular assist device therapy over time (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.99; P=0.034). Among patients with participating caregivers, those with nonmarried (versus married) caregivers were at higher composite risk of HF hospitalization, death, heart transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation (hazard ratio, 2.99; 95% CI, 1.29-6.96; P=0.011). Conclusions Patient and caregiver characteristics may impact their HRQOL and other health outcomes over time. Understanding the patient-caregiver relationship may better inform medical decision making and outcomes in ambulatory advanced HF.

Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life Is a Predictor of Outcomes in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients Treated With Left Ventricular Assist Device Compared With Medical Management: Results From the ROADMAP Study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management).

BACKGROUND: The prospective observational ROADMAP study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management) demonstrated that ambulatory advanced heart failure patients selected for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were more likely to be alive at 1 year on original therapy with ≥75-m improvement in 6-minute walk distance compared with patients assigned to optimal medical management. Whether baseline health-related quality of life (hrQoL) resulted in a heterogeneity of this treatment benefit is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-reported hrQoL was assessed with EuroQol questionnaire and visual analogue scale (VAS). We aimed to identify predictors of event-free survival and survival with acceptable hrQoL (VAS≥60). LVAD patients had significant improvement in 3 of 5 EuroQol dimensions (P<0.05), but no significant changes were observed with optimal medical management. Among patients with baseline VAS<55, survival on original treatment was lower for optimal medical management patients compared with those assigned to LVAD (58±7% versus 82±5%; P=0.004). No such difference was seen if baseline VAS was ≥55 (70±7% versus 75±9%; P=0.79). Survival on original therapy with acceptable quality of life was also more likely with LVAD versus optimal medical management if baseline VAS was <55, whereas outcomes in patients with higher baseline VAS scores were similar regardless of treatment assignment (P=0.046 for treatment arm and baseline VAS interaction). CONCLUSIONS: LVAD therapy resulted in improvement of patient health status in heart failure patients with low self-reported hrQoL, but not in patients with acceptable quality of life at the time of LVAD implantation. Patient-reported hrQoL should be integrated into decision making concerning the use and timing of LVAD therapy in heart failure patients who are symptom limited but remain ambulatory. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01452802.

Accuracy of Seattle Heart Failure Model and HeartMate II Risk Score in Non-Inotrope-Dependent Advanced Heart Failure Patients: Insights From the ROADMAP Study (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients).

BACKGROUND: Timing of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in advanced heart failure patients not on inotropes is unclear. Relevant prediction models exist (SHFM [Seattle Heart Failure Model] and HMRS [HeartMate II Risk Score]), but use in this group is not established. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) is a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study of 200 advanced heart failure patients not on inotropes who met indications for LVAD implantation, comparing the effectiveness of HeartMate II support versus optimal medical management. We compared SHFM-predicted versus observed survival (overall survival and LVAD-free survival) in the optimal medical management arm (n=103) and HMRS-predicted versus observed survival in all LVAD patients (n=111) using Cox modeling, receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves, and calibration plots. In the optimal medical management cohort, the SHFM was a significant predictor of survival (hazard ratio=2.98; P<0.001; ROC area under the curve=0.71; P<0.001) but not LVAD-free survival (hazard ratio=1.41; P=0.097; ROC area under the curve=0.56; P=0.314). SHFM showed adequate calibration for survival but overestimated LVAD-free survival. In the LVAD cohort, the HMRS had marginal discrimination at 3 (Cox P=0.23; ROC area under the curve=0.71; P=0.026) and 12 months (Cox P=0.036; ROC area under the curve=0.62; P=0.122), but calibration was poor, underestimating survival across time and risk subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In non-inotrope-dependent advanced heart failure patients receiving optimal medical management, the SHFM was predictive of overall survival but underestimated the risk of clinical worsening and LVAD implantation. Among LVAD patients, the HMRS had marginal discrimination and underestimated survival post-LVAD implantation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01452802.

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients: The ROADMAP Study 2-Year Results.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to provide the pre-specified primary endpoint of the ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) trial at 2 years. BACKGROUND: The ROADMAP trial was a prospective nonrandomized observational study of 200 patients (97 with a left ventricular assist device [LVAD], 103 on optimal medical management [OMM]) that showed that survival with improved functional status at 1 year was better with LVADs compared with OMM in a patient population of ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIb/IV patients. METHODS: The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance ≥75 m. RESULTS: Patients receiving LVAD versus OMM had lower baseline health-related quality of life, reduced Seattle Heart Failure Model 1-year survival (78% vs. 84%; p = 0.012), and were predominantly INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 4 (65% vs. 34%; p < 0.001) versus profiles 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint at 2 years: 30% LVAD versus 12% OMM (odds ratio: 3.2 [95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 7.7]; p = 0.012). Survival as treated on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD versus OMM (70 ± 5% vs. 41 ± 5%; p < 0.001), but there was no difference in intent-to-treat survival (70 ± 5% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.307). In the OMM arm, 23 of 103 (22%) received delayed LVADs (18 within 12 months; 5 from 12 to 24 months). LVAD adverse events declined after year 1 for bleeding (primarily gastrointestinal) and arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: Survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance was superior with LVAD compared with OMM at 2 years. Reduction in key adverse events beyond 1 year was observed in the LVAD group. The ROADMAP trial provides risk-benefit information to guide patient- and physician-shared decision making for elective LVAD therapy as a treatment for heart failure. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients: Results From the ROADMAP Study.

BACKGROUND: Data for left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in patients with noninotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) are limited. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD support versus optimal medical management (OMM) in ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIB/IV patients meeting indications for LVAD destination therapy but not dependent on intravenous inotropic support. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter (N = 41), observational study of 200 patients (97 LVAD, 103 OMM). Entry criteria included ≥1 hospitalization for HF in the last 12 months and 6-min walk distance (6MWD) <300 m. The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6MWD ≥75 m at 12 months. RESULTS: LVAD patients were more severely ill, with more patients classified as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 4 (65% LVAD vs. 34% OMM; p < 0.001) than 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint (39% LVAD vs. 21% OMM; odds ratio: 2.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 4.8]; p = 0.012). On the basis of as-treated analysis, 12-month survival was greater for LVAD versus OMM (80 ± 4% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.022) patients. Adverse events were higher in LVAD patients, at 1.89 events/patient-year (EPPY), primarily driven by bleeding (1.22 EPPY), than with OMM, at 0.83 EPPY, primarily driven by worsening HF (0.68 EPPY). Most patients (80% LVAD vs. 62% OMM; p < 0.001) required hospitalizations. Health-related quality of life (HRQol) and depression improved from baseline more significantly with LVADs than with OMM (Δ visual analog scale: 29 ± 25 vs. 10 ± 22 [p < 0.001]; Δ Patient Health Questionnaire-9: -5 ± 7 vs. -1 ± 5 [p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Survival with improved functional status was better with HMII LVAD compared with OMM. Despite experiencing more frequent adverse events, LVAD patients improved more in HRQol and depression. The results support HMII use in functionally limited, noninotrope-dependent HF patients with poor HRQoL. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device [LVAD] and Medical Management [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Psychosocial assessment of candidates and risk classification of patients considered for durable mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: The psychosocial assessment of candidates for transplantation (PACT), developed to assess candidates for heart transplant, has not been routinely used to assess left ventricular assist device (LVAD) candidacy. We examined the efficacy of the PACT to assess psychosocial outcomes in LVAD patients. METHODS: We reviewed patients who received LVAD implants between June 2006 and April 2011 and retrospectively applied the PACT. We determined the accuracy of identifying social success with the PACT and revised domains to reflect criteria influencing social success for LVAD patients. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (72% men, 44% non-white, 50.4 years old) were divided into high-scoring and low-scoring groups. Nine patients with low PACT scores were falsely categorized as high-risk, whereas 4 with high scores had poor social outcomes. The score had a high positive-predictive value (0.86) but low negative-predictive value (0.31). The PACT was revised (modified [m]PACT) to measure indicators, such as social support and understanding of care requirements, identified to more closely affect LVAD outcome. The mPACT exhibited improved accuracy. A reclassification table was developed, and the net reclassification index was 0.32. The percentage of patients incorrectly classified for social risk decreased from 27% with the PACT to 8% with the mPACT. Patients with higher mPACT scores had decreased 30-day readmission rates (26% vs 67%, p = 0.045) after device implantation. CONCLUSIONS: By emphasizing social support, psychologic health, lifestyle factors, and device understanding, the mPACT showed improved performance in risk-stratifying candidates for LVAD therapy. Prospective validation is warranted.