Psychosocial readiness assessment for heart transplant candidates.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial evaluation for transplant suitability is required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as a condition of participation for transplant programs. There are no regulations regarding follow-up reassessment for transplant readiness after waitlisting. OBJECTIVES: An evidence-based pilot project was developed and implemented to evaluate the feasibility of psychosocial readiness assessments for waitlisted heart transplantation candidates. The primary aim was to test the feasibility of these assessments in practice from a patient and programmatic perspective. METHODS: During a 12-week period, waitlisted outpatients underwent one assessment each. Socioeconomic elements of caregiver support, housing, transportation, and insurance coverage status were assessed by simple using "yes/no" questions. To assess mental health needs, the General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire (GAD-7) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8) tools were utilized. Rescheduled readiness visits and no-show rates were measured. A post-implementation Qualtrics survey was administered to measure team member perceptions of feasibility. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were assessed during the 12-week period. The primary aim of feasibility was achieved with 93 % of visits performed with freedom from rescheduling or patient no-show to the visit. Additionally, 75 % of team members reported the readiness assessments were feasible to complete in practice. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing the non-medical and mental health needs of waitlisted heart transplant patients allows transplant programs to maintain candidates with necessary resources and care. The readiness assessments are feasible in practice and may serve to reduce untoward outcomes in the post-transplant phase by providing targeted care prior to the time of transplant.

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on evaluation for heart transplantation at an urban academic medical center.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with advanced heart failure, socioeconomic deprivation may impede referral for heart transplantation (HT). We examined the association of socioeconomic deprivation with listing among patients evaluated at our institution and compared this against the backdrop of our local community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients evaluated for HT between January 2017 and December 2020. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were recorded. Block group-level area deprivation index (ADI) decile was obtained at each patient's home address and Socioeconomic Status (SES) index was determined by patient zip code. RESULTS: In total, 400 evaluations were initiated; one international patient was excluded. Among this population, 111 (27.8%) were women, 219 (54.9%) were White, 94 (23.6%) Black, and 59 (14.8%) Hispanic. 248 (62.2%) patients were listed for transplant. Listed patients had significantly higher SES index and lower ADI compared to those who were not listed. However, after adjustment for clinical factors, ADI and SESi were not predictive of listing. Similarly, patient sex, race, and insurance did not influence the likelihood of listing for HT. Notably, the distribution of the referral cohort based on ADI deciles was not reflective of our center's catchment area, indicating opportunities for improving access to transplant for disadvantaged populations. CONCLUSIONS: Although socioeconomic deprivation did not predict listing in our analysis, we recognize the need for broader outreach to combat upstream bias that prevents patients from being referred for HT.

Driveline Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: Effect of Standardized Protocols, Pathogen Type, and Treatment Strategy.

Driveline infection (DLI) is common after left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Limited data exist on DLI prevention and management. We investigated the impact of standardized driveline care initiatives, specific pathogens, and chronic antibiotic suppression (CAS) on DLI outcomes. 591 LVAD patients were retrospectively categorized based on driveline care initiatives implemented at our institution (2009-2019). Era (E)1: nonstandardized care; E2: standardized driveline care protocol; E3: addition of marking driveline exit site; E4: addition of "no shower" policy. 87(15%) patients developed DLI at a median (IQR) of 403(520) days. S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were the most common pathogens. 31 (36%) of DLI patients required incision and drainage (I&D) and 5 (5.7%) device exchange. P. aeruginosa significantly increased risk for initial I&D (HR 2.7, 95% CI, 1.1-6.3) and recurrent I&D or death (HR 4.2, 95% CI, 1.4-12.5). Initial I&D was associated with a significant increased risk of death (HR 2.92 (1.33-6.44); P = 0.008) when compared to patients who did not develop DLI. Implementation of standardized driveline care protocol (E2) was associated with increased 2-year freedom from DLI compared to nonstandardized care (HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.2-0.6, P < 0.01). Additional preventive strategies (E3&E4) showed no further reduction in DLI rates. 57(65%) DLI patients received CAS, 44% of them required escalation to intravenous antibiotics and/or I&D. Presence of P. aeruginosa DLI markedly increased risk for I&D or death. Conditional survival of patients progressing to I&D is diminished. Standardized driveline care protocol was associated with a significant reduction in DLI, while additional preventive strategies require further testing.

Advanced heart failure patients supported with ambulatory inotropic therapy: What defines success of therapy?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the profiles and outcomes of a cohort of advanced heart failure patients on ambulatory inotropic therapy (AIT). BACKGROUND: With the growing burden of patients with end-stage heart failure, AIT is an increasingly common short or long-term option, for use as bridge to heart transplant (BTT), bridge to ventricular assist device (BTVAD), bridge to decision regarding advanced therapies (BTD) or as palliative care. AIT may be preferred by some patients and physicians to facilitate hospital discharge. However, counseling patients on risks and benefits is critically important in the modern era of defibrillators, durable mechanical support and palliative care. METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of 241 patients on AIT. End points included transplant, VAD implantation, weaning of inotropes, or death. The primary outcomes were survival on AIT and ability to reach intended goal if planned as BTT or BTVAD. We also evaluated recurrent heart failure hospitalizations, incidence of ventricular arrhythmias (VT/VF) and indwelling line infections. Unintended consequences of AIT, such reaching unintended end point (e.g. VAD implantation in BTT patient) or worse than expected outcome after LVAD or HT, were recorded. RESULTS: Mean age of the cohort was 60.7 ± 13.2 years, 71% male, with Class III-IV heart failure (56% non-ischemic). Average ejection fraction was 19.4 ± 10.2%, pre-AIT cardiac index was 1.5 ± 0.4 L/min/m2 and 24% had prior ventricular arrhythmias. Overall on-AIT 1-year survival was 83%. Hospitalizations occurred in 51.9% (125) of patients a total of 174 times for worsening heart failure, line complication or ventricular arrhythmia. In the BTT cohort, only 42% were transplanted by the end of follow-up, with a 14.8% risk of death or delisting for clinical deterioration. For the patients who were transplanted, 1-year post HT survival was 96.7%. In the BTVAD cohort, 1-year survival after LVAD was 90%, but with 61.7% of patients undergoing LVAD as INTERMACS 1-2. In the palliative care cohort, only 24.5% of patients had a formal palliative care consult prior to AIT. CONCLUSIONS: AIT is a strategy to discharge advanced heart failure patients from the hospital. It may be useful as bridge to transplant or ventricular assist device, but may be limited by complications such as hospitalizations, infections, and ventricular arrhythmias. Of particular note, it appears more challenging to bridge to transplant on AIT in the new allocation system. It is important to clarify the goals of AIT therapy upfront and continue to counsel patients on risks and benefits of the therapy itself and potential unintended consequences. Formalized, multi-disciplinary care planning is essential to clearly define individualized patient, as well as programmatic goals of AIT.

Transition of a Large Tertiary Heart Failure Program in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Changes That Will Endure.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed severe restrictions on traditional methods of patient care. During the pandemic, the heart failure program at New York-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, NY rapidly and comprehensively transitioned its care delivery model and administrative organization to conform to a new healthcare environment while still providing high-quality care to a large cohort of patients with heart failure, heart transplantation, and left ventricular assist device. In addition to the widespread adoption of telehealth, our program restructured outpatient care, initiating a shared clinic model and introducing a comprehensive remote monitoring program to manage patients with heart failure and heart transplant. All conferences, including administrative meetings, support groups, and educational seminars were converted to teleconferencing platforms. Following the peak of COVID-19, many of the new changes have been maintained, and the program structure will be permanently altered as a lasting effect of this pandemic. In this article, we review the details of our program's transition in the face of COVID-19 and highlight the programmatic changes that will endure.