Search

Heart failure is the leading cause of hospitalizations and readmissions. Guideline-directed medical therapy is the cornerstone to improving outcomes, but less than 20% of patients with heart failure marked by reduced ejection fraction receive target doses. This report reviews the neurohormonal cascade that occurs in heart failure and the role of guideline-directed medical therapy based on the results of landmark trials. In addition, evidence-based strategies to up-titrate medications are described. Nurse practitioners are in an optimal situation to titrate guideline therapy with frequent follow-up and monitoring.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Right ventricular (RV) failure is difficult to predict and is a major determinant of poor outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We evaluated the associations of the following variables with severe RV failure in LVAD patients: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi), simplified RV contraction pressure index (sRVCPI), and HeartMate Risk Score (HMRS). We performed a retrospective case-control study on 216 patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation between 2008 and 2014. The primary analysis assessed the ability of HMRS, PAPi, sRVCPI, and TAPSE to predict severe RV failure. A secondary analysis evaluated the incremental benefit of combining predictive variables. Seventy-four patients developed severe RV failure (24%). Compared with the control group, the severe RV failure group had lower TAPSE (1.30 vs. 1.55; p< 0.001), lower PAPi (1.77 vs. 2.47; p= 0.001), lower sRVCPI (42.71 vs. 57.82; p< 0.001), and higher HMRS (2.12 vs. 1.65; p< 0.001). All four variables had similar receiver operating characteristic curves with modest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.63–0.67, all pvalues < 0.001). In the evaluation of combined predictive variables, the combination of TAPSE with HMRS was found to be best for predicting severe RV failure. In summary, patients at risk for severe RV failure after LVAD implantation were successfully identified using TAPSE, PAPi, sRCPI, and HMRS. The combination of TAPSE and HMRS—incidentally, the least invasive and most readily available variables—proved to be superior to RV-centric metrics for predicting severe RV failure. The predictive and clinical use of these two variables should be tested prospectively.

This study aims to characterize caregivers of patients considering destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT-LVAD) and evaluate the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention.

IMPORTANCE: Shared decision making helps patients and clinicians elect therapies aligned with patients’ values and preferences. This is particularly important for invasive therapies with considerable trade-offs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a shared decision support intervention for patients considering destination therapy left ventricular assist device (DT LVAD) placement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From 2015 to 2017, a randomized, stepped-wedge trial was conducted in 6 US LVAD implanting centers including 248 patients being considered for DT LVAD. After randomly varying time in usual care, sites were transitioned to an intervention consisting of clinician education and use of DT LVAD pamphlet and video patient decision aids. Follow up occurred at 1 and 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Decision quality as measured by knowledge and values-choice concordance. RESULTS: In total, 135 patients were enrolled during control and 113 during intervention periods. At enrollment, 59 (23.8%) participants were in intensive care, 60 (24.1%) were older than 70 years, 39 (15.7%) were women, 45 (18.1%) were racial/ethnic minorities, and 62 (25.0%) were college graduates. Patient knowledge (mean test performance) during the decision-making period improved from 59.5% to 64.9% in the control group vs 59.1% to 70.0% in the intervention group (adjusted difference of difference, 5.5%; P = .03). Stated values at 1 month (scale 1 = “do everything I can to live longer…” to 10 = “live with whatever time I have left…”) were a mean of 2.37 in control and 3.33 in intervention (P = .03). Patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month favored LVAD more in the control group (than in the intervention group (47 [59.5%] vs 95 [91.3%], P &lt; .001). Correlation between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice at 1 month was stronger in the intervention group than in the control group (difference in Kendall’s τ, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.05-0.45); however, there was no improved correlation between stated values and actual treatment received by 6 months for the intervention compared with the control group (difference in Kendall’s τ, 0.01; 95% CI, −0.24 to 0.25). The adjusted rate of LVAD implantation by 6 months was higher for those in the control group (79.9%) than those in the intervention group (53.9%, P = .008), with significant variation by site. There were no differences in decision conflict, decision regret, or preferred control. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A shared decision-making intervention for DT LVAD modestly improved patient decision quality as measured by patient knowledge and concordance between stated values and patient-reported treatment choice, but did not improve concordance between stated values and actual treatment received. The rate of implantation of LVADs was substantially lower in the intervention compared with the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02344576

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an underrecognized phenomenon in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD). Previously, there has been an optimistic expectation of a benign clinical course; however, AMI in LVAD-supported patients can result in profound consequences and management remains controversial. We describe a case series of AMI in four CF-LVAD patients, each with a different presentation, clinical course, treatment, and outcome. The clinical variability and mixed outcomes of these patients highlights the unique challenges in diagnosis and management of AMI in this population, particularly the uncertain role of percutaneous intervention (PCI), and underscores the potentially poor prognosis of this entity. Several key points emerge from this review. First, LVAD-supported patients frequently have underlying abnormalities on the electrocardiogram (ECG) that obscure the diagnosis of AMI. Second, clinicians should have a high degree of suspicion for AMI in the presence of suggestive clinical features, elevated cardiac biomarkers, or new-onset ventricular arrhythmias. Third, the decision to proceed with PCI requires careful evaluation of the risk of hemorrhage, and strong consideration should be given to the use of bleeding avoidance strategies during and after PCI.

This study sought to determine whether severe right ventricular (RV) dysfunction in the pre-operative setting is associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD).

This study evaluated the Heartmate Risk Score (HMRS) and its potential benefits in clinical practice.

This study evaluated clinical outcomes associated with erythropoiesis stimulating agent (ESA) use in left ventricular assist devices (LVAD)–supported patients.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Right heart failure is a potentially devastating complication of mechanical circulatory support, occurring at a rate of 0.49 events per 100 patient-months.1Pulmonary vasodilators such as phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5i) have been frequently used to unload the right ventricle in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients, but there is scant evidence to support this practice.2,3The purpose of this analysis is to provide additional data regarding the safety and efficacy of the PDE5i sildenafil in a real world population of patients supported with LVADs at Washington University in St. Louis. Sildenafil use was not associated with differences in gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, stroke, mortality, heart failure (HF) admission, or orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT).

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve survival and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure. Despite these benefits, combined post- and precapillary pulmonary hypertension can be particularly problematic in patients on LVAD support, often exacerbating right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Both persistently elevated pulmonary vascular resistance and RV dysfunction are associated with adverse outcomes, including death after LVAD. These observations have led to significant interest in the use of pulmonary vasodilators to treat pulmonary hypertension and preserve RV function among LVAD-supported patients. Although pulmonary vasodilators are commonly used for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension and RV dysfunction in LVADs, the benefits of this practice remain unclear. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current challenges in managing pulmonary vascular disease and RV dysfunction in patients with heart failure on LVAD support.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.