Ethical considerations in xenotransplantation of thoracic organs - a call for a debate on value based decisions.

Xenotransplant covers a broad ethical territory and there are several ethical questions that have arisen in parallel with the technological advances that have allowed the first porcine transplants to occur. This brief communication highlights ethical considerations regarding heart and lung xenotransplantation, with an emphasis on unresolved value-based concerns in the field. The aim of this text is therefore to encourage the readers to consider the vast potential of this emerging technique to do good, but also the risk of doing harm, and to participate in a discussion. The list of questions presented here is not exhaustive but hopefully represents some of the questions that appear to be most pressing as the field advances. The focus is on the value-based, or ethical questions, not the questions related to the practical medical procedures.

Heart transplant donation after circulatory death: current status and implications.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of cardiac transplantation following circulatory death (DCD) has been limited worldwide. Concerns about cardiac function after warm ischemia and the potential for decreased graft function have been important considerations in this hesitancy. In addition, ethical and legal questions about the two widely used organ procurement methods have led to discussions and public education in many countries. RECENT FINDINGS: Publication of a US randomized trial of cardiac transplantation following DCD has shown that it is both feasible and has similar short-term outcomes compared with cardiac transplantation following brain death (DBD). These data support those from both Australia and the UK who have largest experience to date. SUMMARY: The adoption of cardiac transplantation following circulatory death has increased overall cardiac transplantation in those transplant centers who have incorporated these donors. Short term outcomes for DCD organ procurement methods are similar to those outcomes using DBD hearts. Continued study and standardization of warm ischemic times will allow for better comparisons of organ procurement techniques and organ optimization. The ethical concerns about procurement methods, in addition to a discussion of procurement costs and feasibility will need to be addressed further in the efforts to expand the organ pool and increase overall cardiac transplantation numbers.

Deactivation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices at the End of Life: Narrative Review and Ethical Framework.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become an increasingly common advanced therapy in patients with severe symptomatic heart failure. Their unique nature in prolonging life through incorporation into the circulatory system raises ethical questions regarding patient identity and values, device ontology, and treatment categorization; approaching requests for LVAD deactivation requires consideration of these factors, among others. To that end, clinicians would benefit from a deeper understanding of: 1) the history and nature of LVADs; 2) the wider context of device deactivation and associated ethical considerations; and 3) an introductory framework incorporating best practices in requests for LVAD deactivation (specifically in controversial situations without obvious medical or device-related complications). In such decisions, heart failure teams can safeguard patient preferences without compromising ethical practice through more explicit advance care planning before LVAD implantation, early integration of hospice and palliative medicine specialists (maintained throughout the disease process), and further research interrogating behaviors and attitudes related to LVAD deactivation.

Socioeconomic status and in-hospital outcomes for patients undergoing heart transplantation or ventricular assist device implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Although lower socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with worse in-hospital outcomes among patients with heart failure, the in-hospital outcomes for patients undergoing durable Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation or Heart Transplantation (HT) based on SES have not been well characterized. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample of hospitalizations between January 2016 and December 2020 of patients aged 18 and over who underwent a HT or newly implanted LVAD. Quartile classification of the median household income of the patient's residential zip code was used to estimate SES. Multivariable analyses with logistic and linear regression were used to evaluate the effects of SES on inpatient outcomes including inpatient mortality, length of stay, and key inpatient complications. RESULTS: A total of 16,265 weighted hospitalizations for new LVAD implantation and 14,320 weighted hospitalizations for HT were identified. In multivariable analysis, among patients undergoing HT or LVAD implantation respectively, there were no significant differences between the lowest and highest SES quartiles among important in-hospital outcomes including length of stay (adj B-coeff .56, (-3.59)-(4.71), p = .79 and adj B-coeff 2.40, (-.21)-(5.02), p = .07) and mortality (aOR 1.02, .61-1.70, p = .94 and aOR 1.08, .72-1.62, p = .73). There were also no differences based on SES quartile in important inpatient complications including stroke and cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: In this analysis from the National Inpatient Sample, we demonstrate that SES, evaluated by median zip code income, was not associated with important in-hospital metrics including mortality and length of stay among patients undergoing LVAD or HT.

Native BK Polyomavirus Nephropathy in an Orthotopic Heart Transplant Patient.

BK polyomavirus nephropathy (BKVN) is a common cause of nephropathy in kidney transplant patients and is typically seen within the first year after transplantation. BK polyomavirus nephropathy can occur in the native kidneys of patients with nonrenal solid-organ transplants (NRSOT). However, this is rare, especially outside the early post-transplant period, and BKVN is not usually considered in the differential diagnosis for acute kidney injury in NRSOT patients. We present a case of a 75-year-old man who had undergone orthotopic heart transplant 13 years prior with stable allograft function who developed progressive renal dysfunction in the setting of recent unilateral obstructive nephrolithiasis requiring ureteral stenting. Kidney biopsy demonstrated evidence of polyomavirus nephritis. Serum BK viral load was elevated. Despite reducing immunosuppression and initiating leflunomide, viral clearance was never achieved. The patient experienced progressive failure to thrive before ultimately transitioning to hospice care and dying. The intensity of immunosuppression is a well-known risk factor for viral replication; ureteral stenting has also been associated with BKVN. However, since clinical manifestations of BK viral infections often include a genitourinary (GU) tract pathology, it is important for clinicians to consider BKVN in patients with NRSOT with progressive renal dysfunction, especially in the clinical context of known GU disease.

Neprilysin Inhibitors in Heart Failure: The Science, Mechanism of Action, Clinical Studies, and Unanswered Questions.

This article provides a contemporary review and a new perspective on the role of neprilysin inhibition in heart failure (HF) in the context of recent clinical trials and addresses potential mechanisms and unanswered questions in certain HF patient populations. Neprilysin is an endopeptidase that cleaves a variety of peptides such as natriuretic peptides, bradykinin, adrenomedullin, substance P, angiotensin I and II, and endothelin. It has a broad role in cardiovascular, renal, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, endocrine, and neurologic functions. The combined angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi) has been developed with an intent to increase vasodilatory natriuretic peptides and prevent counterregulatory activation of the angiotensin system. ARNi therapy is very effective in reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for HF in patients with HF and New York Heart Association functional class II to III symptoms, but studies failed to show any benefits with ARNi when compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction or in patients following myocardial infarction with left ventricular dysfunction but without HF. These raise the questions about whether the enzymatic breakdown of natriuretic peptides may not be a very effective solution in advanced HF patients when there is downstream blunting of the response to natriuretic peptides or among post-myocardial infarction patients in the absence of HF when there may not be a need for increased natriuretic peptide availability. Furthermore, there is a need for additional studies to determine the long-term effects of ARNi on albuminuria, obesity, glycemic control and lipid profile, blood pressure, and cognitive function in patients with HF.

An Open Discussion of the Impact of OpenNotes on Clinical Ethics: A Justification for Harm-Based Exclusions from Clinical Ethics Documentation.

The OpenNotes (ON) mandate in the 21st Century Cures Act requires that patients or their legally authorized representatives be able to access their medical information in their electronic medical record (EMR) in real time. Ethics notes fall under the domain of this policy. We argue that ethics notes are unique from other clinical documentation in a number of ways: they lack best-practice guidelines, are written in the context of common misconceptions surrounding the purpose of ethics consultation, and often answer questions of a different nature than other documentation. Thus, we believe the clinical ethics community would benefit from clarification on when the withholding of ethics notes is justified. We provide recommendations for excluding information from ethics documentation based on the likelihood and magnitude of harm that may occur with particular disclosures and suggest approaches to decrease the potential harms that may occur. We define and explain six types of reasons to exclude information from ethics notes based on significant harms that are not addressed in the ON policy: (1) harmful revelations from a protected chart note; (2) negative emotional effects on patients or families; (3) the purpose of the consultation is undermined by harmful consequences; (4) avoidable negative impact on interpersonal dynamics; (5) inappropriate labeling or disclosure of medical, social, or financial information; and (6) inclusion of biasing or otherwise unfair information. We also suggest approaches to mitigate harm when excluding, including, reframing, or delaying release of information that is perceived to be relevant to an ethics case. Overall, we hope our analysis and recommendations will initiate a much-needed discussion about the impact of the ON mandate on clinical ethics documentation.

Telerehabilitation: Future of Phase II Cardiac Rehabilitation: Review of Preliminary Outcomes.

In this brief communication, we reported Telehealth Home-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation (CR) program structure and preliminary outcomes from patients that completed a 12-week program after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). We aim to advocate the use of Telerehabilitation as a Phase II CR in patients immediately after the CABG. This approach was innovative and encouraging because the patients were still in subacute phase. The program can serve as a continuation of care for the patients after being discharged from a hospital while regaining their functional ability at home. Our preliminary outcomes demonstrated improvements in resting heart rate, activity level, nutrition status, self-efficacy for managing cardiac diseases, muscle strength, endurance and depression. There were no adverse events during the virtual sessions. Patient satisfaction score was high.

The development and initial validation of the PROMIS®+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use. METHODS AND RESULTS: Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0-100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman-Brown), test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82-0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman-Brown 0.60-0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test-retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75-0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6-8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40-0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0-5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29-0.35). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

SGLT-2 Inhibitors for Patients with Heart Failure: What Have We Learned Recently?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we discuss the mechanisms of action of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and the purported protective effects for mitigating heart failure (HF)-related outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Major randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the cardiovascular safety and efficacy of SGLT-2i among patients without known HF and those with established HF with reduced ejection fraction or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF respectively). Recent HF guidelines have incorporated SGLT-2i in HF treatment algorithms. SGLT-2i have emerged as a novel treatment for both prevention of HF and reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among patients with existing HFrEF or HFpEF.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.