Change in quality of life from before to after discharge following left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from before to after hospital discharge have been examined only in a very small sample of patients. The purposes of this study are to describe change in QOL from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients and to determine whether being discharged with an LVAD predicts better QOL than being hospitalized with an LVAD. METHODS: A non-random sample of 62 LVAD patients (approximately 50 years old, male, white, married, fairly well-educated) completed self-report questionnaires at >or=2 timepoints post-implant. The questionnaires (Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale, Jalowiec Coping Scale), which were collated into booklets, had acceptable reliability and validity. Longitudinal analyses were performed in 2 steps using 1-sample t-tests and linear mixed effects modeling. RESULTS: Perception of QOL and health status were fairly good both before and after discharge of LVAD patients. Discharge predicted increased satisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life; decreased overall and psychologic stress and stress related to family and friends, self-care and work/school/finances; and decreased physical and self-care disability. CONCLUSIONS: QOL outcomes improved from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients awaiting heart transplantation. As LVADs potentially become available as destination therapy, in addition to being successful bridges to heart transplantation, QOL outcomes will become more important to study.

Change in quality of life from after left ventricular assist device implantation to after heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: No studies have analyzed quality of life (QOL) from before to after heart transplantation in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal, multi-site study was to compare QOL outcomes of patients listed for heart transplantation who required a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at 3 months after implantation of an LVAD vs 3 months after heart transplantation. METHODS: A non-random sample of 40 patients (predominantly middle-aged, married, white men), who had paired data at both 3 months after LVAD implantation and 3 months after heart transplantation, were investigated. Patients completed self-report questionnaires (with acceptable reliability and validity) at both time periods, including the Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale (completed only after LVAD implant), Heart Transplant Stressor Scale (completed only after heart transplant) and Jalowiec Coping Scale. Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses using paired t-tests were performed with statistical significance set at 0.01. RESULTS: Patients were significantly more satisfied with their lives overall and with their health and functioning at 3 months after heart transplantation as compared with 3 months after LVAD implantation. Mobility, self-care ability, physical ability and overall functional ability improved from 3 months after LVAD implant to 3 months after heart transplant. There was significantly less symptom distress after LVAD implant as compared with after heart transplant for the neurologic, dermatologic and physical sub-scales. Work/school/financial stress was significantly lower after heart transplant vs after LVAD implant. In contrast, 2 other areas of stress were significantly lower after LVAD implant vs after heart transplant: self-care stress and hospital/clinic-related stress. CONCLUSIONS: Differences were found in QOL outcomes at 3 months after LVAD implant as compared with 3 months after heart transplant. Our findings point out specific areas of concern with respect to QOL after LVAD implant and post-transplant, some of which are amenable to health-care provider interventions.

Longitudinal change in quality of life and impact on survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: The HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device has been approved for use as destination therapy. Thus, the study of quality-of-life outcomes, as well as morbidity and mortality, is imperative. The purpose of our study was to describe change with time (from 1 month to 1 year) in patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation and to identify quality-of-life predictors of survival after left ventricular assist device implantation. METHODS: A nonrandom sample of 78 patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device (primarily middle-aged, white married males) who had quality-of-life data at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 months after implant was the subject of this report. The sample size decreased with time primarily because of heart transplantation. Patients completed the following booklets of questionnaires: Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, and Sickness Impact Profile. Analyses included both descriptive analyses and modeling procedures (mixed-effects models and Cox proportional hazards models). RESULTS: Quality-of-life outcomes were fairly good and stable from 1 month to 1 year after HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device implantation. Both positive and negative changes were detected in all quality-of-life domains (physical and occupational function, social interaction, somatic sensation, and psychological state) after left ventricular assist device insertion. Items from the physical domain of quality of life, specifically walking and dressing oneself, were significantly associated with the risk of dying after left ventricular assist device implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying poor quality-of-life outcomes within 1 year after left ventricular assist device implantation provides direction to develop strategies to improve outcomes. Physical and occupational rehabilitation, psychosocial intervention, and monitoring symptom distress and physical disability may contribute to improved quality-of-life outcomes and survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Predictors of quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVES: To describe quality-of-life outcomes; determine relationships between quality of life and demographic, physical, psychosocial, and clinical variables; and identify predictors of quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. METHODS: Patients who received either an implantable pneumatic (n = 38) or a vented electric (n = 54) left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation between August 1, 1994, and August 31, 1999, completed 6 instruments used to measure quality of life andfactors related to quality of life. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests, and forward, stepwise multiple regression. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with quality of life was quite high as determined from the total score on the Quality of Life Index (mean = 0.69). Patients were very satisfied with the implantation and thought that they would do well after future heart transplant surgery. Patients had a moderate level of stress. Significant predictors of overall quality of life were psychological symptoms, stress, and race; these accounted for 46% of variance in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were satisfied with their quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. However, they were least satisfied with their health and functioning and yet were optimistic about how well they thought they would do after heart transplantation. Psychological factors were the strongest predictors of satisfaction with overall quality of life.

Coagulopathy in the intensive care unit.

Coagulopathy is a potential problem for many critically ill patients, placing them at risk for hemorrhage. Critical illness activates both hemostasis and the inflammatory-immune system, leading to both physiological and potentially pathophysiological responses. Following complex surgery or trauma, patients are at high risk for development of problems such as thrombocytopenia and postoperative bleeding, challenging nurses to recognize and manage these problems. The clinical manifestations of coagulopathy may be obvious or occult, and correlation with the coagulation panel results is a complex process. Transfusion of blood and components has long been an important part of patient management, but is known to put patients at risk for transfusion-related complications. Current clinical practice guidelines provide blood conservation strategies and criteria to guide decisions on transfusion therapy.

Death by clot: acute coronary syndromes, ischemic stroke, pulmonary embolism, and disseminated intravascular coagulation.

Blood clotting is a complex process that controls bleeding when tissues are injured. Unfortunately, this same process is capable of producing life-threatening thrombi in response to pathophysiological events. Blood clots may form in large and small vessels in response to triggers from disrupted vessel walls, inflammatory cells, cytokines, and other pathology. Platelet-rich clots can impair circulation to the myocardium and brain, leading to acute coronary syndromes and stroke. Erythrocyte-rich clots can embolize from the deep veins and threaten the lungs with pulmonary emboli. Microthrombi can block the circulation to tissues and organs in disseminated intravascular coagulation. An understanding of the pathogenesis of these various clotting syndromes directs effective intervention and preventive measures, minimizing the number of deaths by clot.