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.

Outcomes with ambulatory advanced heart failure from the Medical Arm of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (MedaMACS) Registry.

BACKGROUND: The outlook for ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and the appropriate timing for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or transplant remain uncertain. The aim of this study was to better understand disease trajectory and rates of progression to subsequent LVAD therapy and transplant in ambulatory advanced HF. METHODS: Patients with advanced HF who were New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III or IV and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profiles 4 to 7, despite optimal medical therapy (without inotropic therapy), were enrolled across 11 centers and followed for the end-points of survival, transplantation, LVAD placement, and health-related quality of life. A secondary intention-to-treat survival analysis compared outcomes for MedaMACS patients with a matched group of Profile 4 to 7 patients with LVADs from the INTERMACS registry. RESULTS: Between May 2013 and October 2015, 161 patients were enrolled with INTERMACS Profiles 4 (12%), 5 (32%), 6 (49%), and 7 (7%). By 2 years after enrollment, 75 (47%) patients had reached a primary end-point with 39 (24%) deaths, 17 (11%) undergoing LVAD implantation, and 19 (12%) receiving a transplant. Compared with 1,753 patients with Profiles 4 to 7 receiving LVAD therapy, there was no overall difference in intention-to-treat survival between medical and LVAD therapy, but survival with LVAD therapy was superior to medical therapy among Profile 4 and 5 patients (p = 0.0092). Baseline health-related quality of life was lower among patients receiving a LVAD than those enrolled on continuing oral medical therapy, but increased after 1 year for survivors in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory patients with advanced HF are at high risk for poor outcomes, with only 53% alive on medical therapy after 2 years of follow-up. Survival was similar for medical and LVAD therapy in the overall cohort, which included the lower severity Profiles 6 and 7, but survival was better with LVAD therapy among patients in Profiles 4 and 5. Given the poor outcomes in this group of advanced HF patients, timely consideration of transplant and LVAD is of critical importance.

Discordant Perceptions of Prognosis and Treatment Options Between Physicians and Patients With Advanced Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed patient and physician perceptions of heart failure (HF) disease severity and treatment options. BACKGROUND: The prognosis for ambulatory patients with advanced HF on medical therapy is uncertain, yet has important implications for decision making regarding transplantation and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. METHODS: Ambulatory patients with advanced HF (New York Heart Association functional class III to IV, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 4 to 7) on optimized medical therapy were enrolled across 11 centers. At baseline, treating cardiologists rated patients for perceived risk for transplant, LVAD, or death in the upcoming year. Patients were also surveyed about their own perceptions of life expectancy and willingness to undergo various interventions. RESULTS: At enrollment, physicians regarded 111 of 161 patients (69%) of the total cohort to be at high risk for transplant, LVAD, or death, whereas only 23 patients (14%) felt they were at high risk. After a mean follow-up of 13 months, 61 patients (38%) experienced an endpoint of 33 deaths (21%), 13 transplants (8%), and 15 LVAD implants (9%). There was poor discrimination between risk prediction among both patients and physicians. Among physician-identified high-risk patients, 77% described willingness to consider LVAD, but 63% indicated that they would decline 1 or more other simpler forms of life-sustaining therapy such as ventilation, dialysis, or a feeding tube. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced HF, physicians identified most to be at high risk for transplantation, LVAD, or death, whereas few patients recognized themselves to be at high risk. Patients expressed inconsistent attitudes toward lifesaving treatments, possibly indicating poor understanding of these therapies. Educational interventions regarding disease severity and treatment options should be introduced prior to the need for advanced therapies such as intravenous inotropic therapy, transplantation, or LVAD.

High early event rates in patients with questionable eligibility for advanced heart failure therapies: Results from the Medical Arm of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Medamacs) Registry.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who are not yet inotrope dependent and implications for evaluation and timing for transplant or destination therapy with a left ventricular assist device (DT-LVAD) are unknown. We hypothesized that the characteristics defining eligibility for advanced HF therapies would be a primary determinant of outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Ambulatory patients with advanced HF (New York Heart Association class III-IV, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 4-7) were enrolled across 11 centers from May 2013 to February 2015. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: likely transplant eligible, DT-LVAD eligible, and ineligible for both transplant and DT-LVAD. Clinical characteristics were collected, and patients were prospectively followed for death, transplant, and left ventricular assist device implantation. RESULTS: The study enrolled 144 patients with a mean follow-up of 10 ± 6 months. Patients in the ineligible cohort (n = 43) had worse congestion, renal function, and anemia compared with transplant (n = 51) and DT-LVAD (n = 50) eligible patients. Ineligible patients had higher mortality (23.3% vs 8.0% in DT-LVAD group and 5.9% in transplant group, p = 0.02). The differences in mortality were related to lower rates of transplantation (11.8% in transplant group vs 2.0% in DT-LVAD group and 0% in ineligible group, p = 0.02) and left ventricular assist device implantation (15.7% in transplant group vs 2.0% in DT-LVAD group and 0% in ineligible group, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory patients with advanced HF who were deemed ineligible for transplant and DT-LVAD had markers of greater HF severity and a higher rate of mortality compared with patients eligible for transplant or DT-LVAD. The high early event rate in this group emphasizes the need for timely evaluation and decision making regarding lifesaving therapies.