Factors Associated With Mortality and Hospice Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure Who Received Home Health Services.

BACKGROUND: Although many Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure (HF) are discharged with home health services, little is known about mortality rates and hospice use in this group. OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors for 6-month mortality and hospice use among patients hospitalized due to HF who receive home health care, which could inform efforts to improve palliative and hospice use for these patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted in a 100% national sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with HF who were discharged to home health care between 2017 and 2018. Multivariable Cox regression models examined factors associated with 6-month mortality, and multivariable logistic regression models examined factors associated with hospice use at the time of death. RESULTS: A total of 285,359 Medicare beneficiaries were hospitalized with HF and discharged with home health care; 15.5% (44,174) died within 6 months. Variables most strongly associated with mortality included: age > 85 years (hazard ratio [HR] 1.66, 95% CI 1.61-1.71), urgent/emergency hospital admission (HR 1.68, 1.61-1.76), and "serious" condition compared to "stable" condition (HR 1.64, CI 1.52-1.78). Among 44,174 decedents, 48.2% (21,284) received hospice care at the time of death. Those with lower odds of hospice use at death included patients who were: < 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, CI 0.59-0.72); of Black (OR 0.64, CI 0.59-0.68) or Hispanic race/ethnicity (OR 0.79, CI 0.72-0.88); and Medicaid-eligible (OR 0.80, CI 0.76-0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Although many patients hospitalized for HF are at risk of 6-month mortality and may benefit from palliative and/or hospice services, our findings indicate under-use of hospice care and important disparities in hospice use by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

Dual-Organ Transplantation: Indications, Evaluation, and Outcomes for Heart-Kidney and Heart-Liver Transplantation: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Although heart transplantation is the preferred therapy for appropriate patients with advanced heart failure, the presence of concomitant renal or hepatic dysfunction can pose a barrier to isolated heart transplantation. Because donor organ supply limits the availability of organ transplantation, appropriate allocation of this scarce resource is essential; thus, clear guidance for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation is urgently required. The purposes of this scientific statement are (1) to describe the impact of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction on posttransplantation outcomes; (2) to discuss the assessment of pretransplantation renal and hepatic dysfunction; (3) to provide an approach to patient selection for simultaneous heart-kidney transplantation and simultaneous heart-liver transplantation and posttransplantation management; and (4) to explore the ethics of multiorgan transplantation.

Clinician challenges to evidence-based prescribing for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Reasons for suboptimal prescribing for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been identified, but it is unclear if they remain relevant with recent advances in healthcare delivery and technologies. This study aimed to identify and understand current clinician-perceived challenges to prescribing guideline-directed HFrEF medications. METHODS: We conducted content analysis methodology, including interviews and member-checking focus groups with primary care and cardiology clinicians. Interview guides were informed by the Cabana Framework. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 33 clinicians (13 cardiology specialists, 22 physicians) and member checking with 10 of these. We identified four levels of challenges from the clinician perspective. Clinician level challenges included misconceptions about guideline recommendations, clinician assumptions (e.g., drug cost or affordability), and clinical inertia. Patient-clinician level challenges included misalignment of priorities and insufficient communication. Clinician-clinician level challenges were primarily between generalists and specialists, including lack of role clarity, competing priorities of providing focused versus holistic care, and contrasting confidence regarding safety of newer drugs. Policy and system/organisation level challenges included insufficient access to timely/reliable patient data, and unintended care gaps for medications without financially incentivized metrics. CONCLUSION: This study presents current challenges faced by cardiology and primary care which can be used to strategically design interventions to improve guideline-directed care for HFrEF. The findings support the persistence of many challenges and also sheds light on new challenges. New challenges identified include conflicting perspectives between generalists and specialists, hesitancy to prescribe newer medications due to safety concerns, and unintended consequences related to value-based reimbursement metrics for select medications.

Secondary analysis of electronic opt-out consent in pragmatic research: A study design method to diversify clinical trials?

We conducted a multi-center pragmatic trial of a low-risk intervention focused on medication adherence using an opt-out consent approach, where patients could opt out by letter and then electronically. We focus on the cohort after opt-out by mail. Here, we describe that 8% of patients opted out electronically, resulting in a 92% participation rate. Patients who self-identify as Black or Hispanic were less likely to opt out in the study, and half the study cohort was female. This demographic data is useful for planning future trials employing this approach.

Impact of the 2018 UNOS Heart Transplant Policy Changes on Patient Outcomes.

In 2018, the United Network for Organ Sharing implemented a 6-tier allocation policy to replace the prior 3-tier system. Given increasing listings of critically ill candidates for heart transplantation and lengthening waitlist times, the new policy aimed to better stratify candidates by waitlist mortality, shorten waiting times for high priority candidates, add objective criteria for common cardiac conditions, and further broaden sharing of donor hearts. There have been significant shifts in cardiac transplantation practices and patient outcomes following the implementation of the new policy, including changes in listing practices, waitlist time and mortality, transplant donor characteristics, post-transplantation outcomes, and mechanical circulatory support use. This review aims to highlight emerging trends in United States heart transplantation practice and outcomes following the implementation of the 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing heart allocation policy and to address areas for future modification.

Complementary and Alternative Medicines in the Management of Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) are commonly used across the world by diverse populations and ethnicities but remain largely unregulated. Although many CAM agents are purported to be efficacious and safe by the public, clinical evidence supporting the use of CAM in heart failure remains limited and controversial. Furthermore, health care professionals rarely inquire or document use of CAM as part of the medical record, and patients infrequently disclose their use without further prompting. The goal of this scientific statement is to summarize published efficacy and safety data for CAM and adjunctive interventional wellness approaches in heart failure. Furthermore, other important considerations such as adverse effects and drug interactions that could influence the safety of patients with heart failure are reviewed and discussed.

Variation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Postdischarge Caregiver Requirements: Results From a Mixed-Methods Study With Equity Implications.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) evaluation includes a psychosocial assessment, conducted by social workers (SWs) on the advanced heart failure multidisciplinary team. Postdischarge caregiving plans are central to psychosocial evaluation. Caregiving's relationship with LVAD outcomes is mixed, and testing patients' social resources may disadvantage those from historically undertreated groups. We describe variation in policies defining adequate caregiving plans post-LVAD implant and possible impacts on patients from marginalized groups. METHODS: This was a 2-phase sequential mixed-methods study: (1) phase 1, survey of US-based LVAD SWs, describing assessment structure and policies guiding candidacy outcomes; and (2) phase 2, individual interviews with SWs to further describe how caregiving plan adequacy impacts LVAD candidacy. RESULTS: Sixty-seven SWs returned surveys (rr=47%) from unique programs. Caregiving plan inadequacy (n=30) was the most common psychosocial dealbreaker. When asked what duration of caregiving is required, 23% indicated ≥3 months, 27% 4 to 12 weeks, and 30% <4 weeks. Two reported no duration requirement, 6 stated an indefinite 24/7 commitment was necessary. Across 22 interviews, SWs mirrored that caregiving plans were the most common psychosocial contraindication. How caregiving is operationalized varied. Participants voiced a tension between extended caregiving improving outcomes and the sense that some people of color, women, or low socioeconomic status patients struggle to meet stringent requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Policies regarding adequate duration of 24/7 caregiving vary, but inadequate caregiving plans are the most common psychosocial contraindication. Participants worry about patients' ability to meet restrictive requirements, particularly from historically undertreated groups. This highlights a need to operationalize quality caregiving, standardize assessment, and support medically appropriate patients with strained social resources.

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.

Management of Hypertension in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Mechanical circulatory support with durable continuous-flow ventricular assist devices has become an important therapeutic management strategy for patients with advanced heart failure. As more patients have received these devices and the duration of support per patient has increased, the postimplantation complications have become more apparent, and the need for approaches to manage these complications has become more compelling. Continuous-flow ventricular assist devices, including axial-flow and centrifugal-flow pumps, are the most commonly used mechanical circulatory support devices. Continuous-flow ventricular assist devices and the native heart have a constant physiological interplay dependent on pump speed that affects pressure-flow relationships and patient hemodynamics. A major postimplantation complication is cerebrovascular vascular accidents. The causes of cerebrovascular vascular accidents in ventricular assist device recipients may be related to hypertension, thromboembolic events, bleeding from anticoagulation, or some combination of these. The most readily identifiable and preventable cause is hypertension. Hypertension management in these patients has been hampered by the fact that it is difficult to accurately measure blood pressure because these ventricular assist devices have continuous flow and are often not pulsatile. Mean arterial pressures have to be identified by Doppler or oscillometric cuff and treated. Although guidelines for hypertension management after ventricular assist device implantation are based largely on expert consensus and conventional wisdom, the mainstay of treatment for hypertension includes guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction because this may reduce adverse effects associated with hypertension and increase the likelihood of favorable ventricular remodeling. The use of systemic anticoagulation in ventricular assist device recipients may at a given blood pressure increase the risk of stroke.

2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary.

BACKGROUND: The 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of America (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 in 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. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: 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 that have 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.