Search

Background: No studies have analyzed quality of life (QOL) from before to after heart transplantation in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal, multi-site study was to compare QOL outcomes of patients listed for heart transplantation who required a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at 3 months after implantation of an LVAD vs 3 months after heart transplantation., Methods: A non-random sample of 40 patients (predominantly middle-aged, married, white men), who had paired data at both 3 months after LVAD implantation and 3 months after heart transplantation, were investigated. Patients completed self-report questionnaires (with acceptable reliability and validity) at both time periods, including the Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale (completed only after LVAD implant), Heart Transplant Stressor Scale (completed only after heart transplant) and Jalowiec Coping Scale. Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses using paired t-tests were performed with statistical significance set at 0.01., Results: Patients were significantly more satisfied with their lives overall and with their health and functioning at 3 months after heart transplantation as compared with 3 months after LVAD implantation. Mobility, self-care ability, physical ability and overall functional ability improved from 3 months after LVAD implant to 3 months after heart transplant. There was significantly less symptom distress after LVAD implant as compared with after heart transplant for the neurologic, dermatologic and physical sub-scales. Work/school/financial stress was significantly lower after heart transplant vs after LVAD implant. In contrast, 2 other areas of stress were significantly lower after LVAD implant vs after heart transplant: self-care stress and hospital/clinic-related stress., Conclusions: Differences were found in QOL outcomes at 3 months after LVAD implant as compared with 3 months after heart transplant. Our findings point out specific areas of concern with respect to QOL after LVAD implant and post-transplant, some of which are amenable to health-care provider interventions.

Objectives: To describe quality-of-life outcomes; determine relationships between quality of life and demographic, physical, psychosocial, and clinical variables; and identify predictors of quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device., Methods: Patients who received either an implantable pneumatic (n = 38) or a vented electric (n = 54) left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation between August 1, 1994, and August 31, 1999, completed 6 instruments used to measure quality of life andfactors related to quality of life. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests, and forward, stepwise multiple regression., Results: Overall satisfaction with quality of life was quite high as determined from the total score on the Quality of Life Index (mean = 0.69). Patients were very satisfied with the implantation and thought that they would do well after future heart transplant surgery. Patients had a moderate level of stress. Significant predictors of overall quality of life were psychological symptoms, stress, and race; these accounted for 46% of variance in quality of life., Conclusions: Patients were satisfied with their quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. However, they were least satisfied with their health and functioning and yet were optimistic about how well they thought they would do after heart transplantation. Psychological factors were the strongest predictors of satisfaction with overall quality of life.

Since antiquity, medical care has played an important role in both military strategy and conflict resolution. Although this is usually a negative and an unintended event, medical care can be a positive and a rational alternative to present-day weapons of mass destruction. Yet, military and civilian planners have not traditionally accepted, recognized, and used a "philanthropic string." Nevertheless, medical care can be an important factor in resolving international conflict, either in support of military operations or as a separate function. Therefore, it is timely, and pragmatic, to include humanitarian medical care in strategic military planning.

In war, there has always been a dichotomy between health care needs and resources, and until the mid 18th century, this was an accepted fact of military medicine. However, since then, health care has made remarkable progress based on a belief that a linear periodic deterministic approach will provide solutions to problems. The dichotomy between needs and resources has been recognized or accepted only in disaster or mass casualty medicine, and then only to a limited degree. While degradation to dyssymmetry or chaos and unpredictability is accepted in other scientific disciplines, it has been ignored in medicine. The unpredictability and dissonance inherent in providing military medical care exists, and requires an acceptance of chaos as normal and inevitable. Accordingly, graded responses or austere levels of treatment care plans should be developed that will provide for improved care, particularly in austere military situations.