Palliative Care in Heart Failure: The PAL-HF Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced heart failure (HF) is characterized by high morbidity and mortality. Conventional therapy may not sufficiently reduce patient suffering and maximize quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated whether an interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in addition to evidence-based HF care improves certain outcomes. METHODS: The authors randomized 150 patients with advanced HF between August 15, 2012, and June 25, 2015, to usual care (UC) (n = 75) or UC plus a palliative care intervention (UC + PAL) (n = 75) at a single center. Primary endpoints were 2 quality-of-life measurements, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care scale (FACIT-Pal), assessed at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included assessments of depression and anxiety (measured via the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), spiritual well-being (measured via the FACIT-Spiritual Well-Being scale [FACIT-Sp]), hospitalizations, and mortality. RESULTS: Patients randomized to UC + PAL versus UC alone had clinically significant incremental improvement in KCCQ and FACIT-Pal scores from randomization to 6 months (KCCQ difference = 9.49 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94 to 18.05, p = 0.030; FACIT-Pal difference = 11.77 points, 95% CI: 0.84 to 22.71, p = 0.035). Depression improved in UC + PAL patients (HADS-depression difference = -1.94 points; p = 0.020) versus UC-alone patients, with similar findings for anxiety (HADS-anxiety difference = -1.83 points; p = 0.048). Spiritual well-being was improved in UC + PAL versus UC-alone patients (FACIT-Sp difference = 3.98 points; p = 0.027). Randomization to UC + PAL did not affect rehospitalization or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in advanced HF patients showed consistently greater benefits in quality of life, anxiety, depression, and spiritual well-being compared with UC alone. (Palliative Care in Heart Failure [PAL-HF]; NCT01589601).

Usefulness of Palliative Care to Complement the Management of Patients on Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Within the last decade, advancements in left ventricular assist device therapy have allowed patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) to live longer and with better quality of life. Like other life-saving interventions, however, there remains the risk of complications including infections, bleeding episodes, and stroke. The candidate for left ventricular assist device therapy faces complex challenges going forward, both physical and psychological, many of which may benefit from the application of palliative care principles by trained specialists. Despite these advantages, palliative care remains underused in many advanced HF programs. Here, we describe the benefits of palliative care, barriers to use within HF, and specific applications to the integrated care of patients on mechanical circulatory support.

The palliative care in heart failure trial: rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: The progressive nature of heart failure (HF) coupled with high mortality and poor quality of life mandates greater attention to palliative care as a routine component of advanced HF management. Limited evidence exists from randomized, controlled trials supporting the use of interdisciplinary palliative care in HF. METHODS: PAL-HF is a prospective, controlled, unblinded, single-center study of an interdisciplinary palliative care intervention in 200 patients with advanced HF estimated to have a high likelihood of mortality or rehospitalization in the ensuing 6 months. The 6-month PAL-HF intervention focuses on physical and psychosocial symptom relief, attention to spiritual concerns, and advanced care planning. The primary end point is health-related quality of life measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy with Palliative Care Subscale score at 6 months. Secondary end points include changes in anxiety/depression, spiritual well-being, caregiver satisfaction, cost and resource utilization, and a composite of death, HF hospitalization, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: PAL-HF is a randomized, controlled clinical trial that will help evaluate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of palliative care in advanced HF using a patient-centered outcome as well as clinical and economic end points.

Discordance between patient-predicted and model-predicted life expectancy among ambulatory patients with heart failure.

CONTEXT: Patients with chronic heart failure have impaired long-term survival, but their own expectations regarding prognosis have not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: To quantify expectations for survival in patients with heart failure, to compare patient expectations to model predictions, and to identify factors associated with discrepancies between patient-predicted and model-predicted prognosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective face-to-face survey of patients from the single-center Duke Heart Failure Disease Management Program between July and December 2004, with follow-up through February 2008. Patient-predicted life expectancy was obtained using a visual analog scale. Model-predicted life expectancy was calculated using the Seattle Heart Failure Model. Actuarial-predicted life expectancy, based on age and sex alone, was calculated using life tables. Observed survival was determined from review of medical records and search of the Social Security Death Index. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Life expectancy ratio (LER), defined as the ratio of patient-predicted to model-predicted life expectancy. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 122 patients (mean age, 62 years; 47% African American, 42% New York Heart Association [NYHA] class III or IV). On average, patients overestimated their life expectancy relative to model-predicted life expectancy (median patient-predicted life expectancy, 13.0 years; model-predicted expectancy, 10.0 years). Median LER was 1.4 (interquartile range, 0.8-2.5). Younger age, increased NYHA class, lower ejection fraction, and less depression were the most significant predictors of higher LER. During a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 29% of the original cohort died. There was no association between higher LER and improved survival (adjusted hazard ratio for overestimated compared with concordant LER, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-2.42). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory patients with heart failure tended to substantially overestimate their life expectancy compared with model-based predictions for survival. Because differences in perceived survival could affect decision making regarding advanced therapies and end-of-life planning, the causes of these discordant predictions warrant further study.