Search

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) overestimate survival compared with model-predicted estimates, but the reasons for this discrepancy are poorly understood. We characterized how patients with end-stage HF and their care partners understand prognosis and elicited their preferences around prognosis communication., Methods: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with patients with end-stage HF and their care partners between 2021 and 2022 at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Participants were asked to describe barriers they faced to understanding prognosis. All interviews were coded and analyzed using an iterative content analysis approach., Results: Fifteen patients with end-stage HF and 15 care partners participated, including 7 dyads. The median patient age was 66.5 years (range, 31-80) and included 9 of 15 (60%) White participants and 9 of 15 (60%) were males. Care partners included 10 of 15 (67%) White participants and 6 of 15 (40%) were males. Care partners were partners (n=7, 47%), siblings (n=4, 27%), parents (n=2, 13%), and children (n=2, 13%). Most patients demonstrated a poor understanding of their prognosis. In contrast, care partners commonly identified the patient's rapidly declining trajectory. Patients and care partners described ineffective prognosis communication with clinicians, common barriers to understanding prognosis, and similar suggestions on improving prognosis communication. Barriers to understanding prognosis included (1) conversation avoidance by physicians, (2) information inconsistency across different physicians, (3) distractions during prognosis communication due to emphasis on other conditions, and (4) confusion related to the use of medical jargon. Most patients and care partners wanted discussions around prognosis to begin early in the course of the disease, repeated routinely using layperson's terms, incorporating both quality of life and survival assessments, and involving care partners. Both patients and care partners did not expect precise survival estimates., Conclusions: Patients with end-stage HF demonstrate a poor understanding of their prognosis compared with their care partners. Patients and care partners are open to discussing prognosis early, using direct and patient-centered language., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) results in frequent hospitalizations and impairs quality of life in durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. Anticipation of these events before implantation could have important implications for patient selection and management., Methods: The study population included all adult HeartMate 3 (HM3) primary LVAD recipients enrolled in the STS Intermacs registry from January 2017 to December 2020. Using multivariable modeling methodologies, we investigated the relationships between preimplantation characteristics and postimplant bleeding, bleeding and death, and additional bleeding episodes on subsequent bleeding episodes and created a risk score to predict the likelihood of post-LVAD GIB based solely on preimplantation factors., Results: Of 6,425 patients who received an HM3 LVAD, 1,010 (15.7%) patients experienced GIB. Thirteen preimplantation factors were independent predictors of post-LVAD GIB. A risk score was created from these factors and calculated for each patient. By 3 years postimplant, GIB occurred in 11%, 26%, and 43% of low-, medium- and high-risk patients, respectively. Experiencing 1 post-LVAD GIB event was associated with an increased risk for further GIB events, with 33.9% of patients experiencing at least 1 recurrence. While post-LVAD GIB was associated with mortality, there was no relationship between number of GIB events and death., Conclusions: The Michigan Bleeding Risk Model is a simple tool, which facilitates the prediction of post-LVAD GIB in HM3 recipients using 13 preimplant variables. The implementation of this tool may help in the risk stratification process and may have therapeutic and clinical implications in HM3 LVAD recipients., Competing Interests: Disclosure statement F.DP reports the following disclosures: Noncompensated ad-hoc scientific advisor for Abbott, CH Biomedical, FineHeart, and Medtronic; Noncompensated medical monitor for Abiomed; Member, Data Safety Monitoring Board for Carmat and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PumpKIN Study; Receives grant funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Receives partial salary support from Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan as Associate Director of the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative. Outside of this work, Dr. Likosky (1) receives research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institutes of Health, (2) receives partial salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to advance quality in Michigan in conjunction with the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative, and (3) serves as a consultant for the American Society of Extracorporeal Technology. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This manuscript received no funding., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for the Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)