Current Heart Failure Reports

, 8:212

Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues in Patients Treated with Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy

  • Keith M. Swetz
  • Abigale L. Ottenberg
  • Monica R. Freeman
  • Paul S. Mueller
Article

Abstract

Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy (DT) improve quality of life for many patients with advanced heart failure. However, DT can be associated with risks such as infection, bleeding, and stroke, and may impose psychosocial strain on patients and caregivers. Furthermore, patients treated with DT eventually will die with their device in place whether death is related to the device or not. In response to these concerns, palliative medicine consultation has been suggested with standard DT care to improve focus on quality of life, symptom management, and end-of-life planning. This article reviews key issues associated with caring for patients with DT, including psychosocial, quality-of-life, caregiving, and ethical issues, and discusses end-of-life management of patients with DT, including practical considerations, but moreover, review topics regarding communication, symptom management, and provision of appropriate comfort care.

Keywords

Ventricular assist device LVAD Quality of life Quality of care Heart failure End-stage heart failure ESHF Destination therapy DT Advance care planning Preparedness planning Palliative care End of life Medical ethics Patient-caregiver communication Psychosocial issues 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Lietz K, Long JW, Kfoury AG, et al. Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation as destination therapy in the post-REMATCH era: implications for patient selection. Circulation. 2007;116:497–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long JW, Healy AH, Rasmusson BY, et al. Improving outcomes with long-term “destination” therapy using left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135:1353–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park SJ, Tector A, Piccioni W, et al. Left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy: a new look at survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129:9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, et al. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med 2009;361:2241–51. According to the authors, patients receiving continuous-flow LVADs had improved 2-year survival compared to those using older pulsatile-flow LVADs. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boilson B, Schirger J, Durham III J, et al. Transformation of LVAD destination therapy, “good to great”: ever increasing survival benefit. (Abstract 3662). Circulation. 2009;120:S844.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Rogers JG, Aaronson KD, Boyle AJ, et al. Continuous flow left ventricular assist device improves functional capacity and quality of life of advanced heart failure patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:1826–34. According to the authors, patients receiving continuous-flow LVADs, including 374 as DT, noticed improvement in functional capacity and heart failure–related quality of life. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. Third INTERMACS Annual report: the evolution of destination therapy in the United States. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011;30:115–23. This report of the most recent INTERMACS registry shows improved survival and reduced morbidity with continuous-flow LVADs. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:535–41. This article provides a definition of patient characteristics to allow for better prediction of appropriate patients for LVAD. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krumholz HM, Phillips RS, Hamel MB, et al. Resuscitation preferences among patients with severe congestive heart failure: results from the SUPPORT project. Circulation. 1998;98:648–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lewis EF, Johnson PA, Johnson W, et al. Preferences for quality of life or survival expressed by patients with heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001;20:1016–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aranda JM, Rogers JG, Aronson KD, et al. Quality of life improvements are greater in destination therapy than bridge to transplant patients with a continuous flow left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:A22.E209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Starling RC. Improved quantity and quality of life: a winning combination to treat advanced heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1835–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spertus J, Peterson E, Conard MW, et al. Monitoring clinical changes in patients with heart failure: a comparison of methods. Am Heart J. 2005;150:707–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu FB, Stampfer MJ, Solomon C, et al. Physical activity and risk for cardiovascular events in diabetic women. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:96–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Freeman M. Psychosocial assessment and discharge planning: importance of the social worker in the LVAD multidisciplinary team. In: Joyce D, Joyce L, Locke M, editors. Mechanical circulatory support: principles and applications. 1st ed: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2011 (in press).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Eshelman AK, Mason S, Nemeh H, Williams C. LVAD destination therapy: applying what we know about psychiatric evaluation and management from cardiac failure and transplant. Heart Fail Rev 2009;14:21–8. This article attempts to apply several aspects of psychosocial planning for cardiac transplant to evaluation and selection of LVAD patients. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grady KL, Meyer PM, Dressler D, et al. Change in quality of life from after left ventricular assist device implantation to after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2003;22:1254–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapiro PA, Levin HR, Oz MC. Left ventricular assist devices: psychosocial burden and implications for heart transplant programs. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1996;18:30S–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Petrucci R, Kushon D, Inkles R, et al. Cardiac ventricular support considerations for psychiatry. Psychosomatics. 1999;40:298–303.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grady KL, Meyer PM, Dressler D, et al. Longitudinal change in quality of life and impact on survival after left ventricular assist device implantation. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:1321–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Casida JM, Peters RM, Magnan MA. Self-care demands of persons living with an implantable left-ventricular assist device. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2009;23:279–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Swetz K, Freeman M, AbouEzzeddine O, et al. Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Mayo Clin Proc 2011;86:in press. This review of patients at a single institution that received palliative care consultation in addition to multidisciplinary team support discusses how advance care planning outcomes and complication management was improved by this intervention. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grady KL, Meyer P, Mattea A, et al. Improvement in quality of life outcomes 2 weeks after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001;20:657–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bunzel B, Laederach-Hofmann K, Wieselthaler G, et al. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to heart transplantation: what remains? Long-term emotional sequelae in patients and spouses. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2007;26:384–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bunzel B, Laederach-Hofmann K, Wieselthaler GM, et al. Posttraumatic stress disorder after implantation of a mechanical assist device followed by heart transplantation: evaluation of patients and partners. Transplant Proc. 2005;37:1365–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    •• Wilson SR, Givertz MM, Stewart GC, Mudge GH, Jr. Ventricular assist devices the challenges of outpatient management. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1647–59. The authors reviewed several unique outpatient issues encountered by patients with LVADs and discussed possible interventions to maximize quality of life. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    • Zambroski CH, Combs P, Cronin SN, Pfeffer C. Edgar Allan Poe, “the pit and the pendulum,” and ventricular assist devices. Crit Care Nurse 2009;29:29–39. This essay explores how patients with LVADs are continuously aware of their device and how this can have psychological ramifications over time that may need to be addressed. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    • Marcuccilli L, Casida JJ, Peters RM, Wright S. Sex and intimacy among patients with implantable left-ventricular assist devices. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2011. According to the authors, quality-of-life management after LVAD should consider sexual behavior as a part of patients’ normal desires, and efforts to improve this should be addressed. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    •• MacIver J, Ross HJ, Delgado DH, et al. Community support of patients with a left ventricular assist device: the Toronto General Hospital experience. Can J Cardiol 2009;25:e377–81. This is a retrospective case-based analysis of patients who received LVAD support that discusses keys to managing patients in the community. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Seemuth SC, Richenbacher WE. Education of the ventricular assist device patient’s community services. ASAIO J. 2001;47:596–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dudzinski DM. Ethics guidelines for destination therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;81:1185–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Mueller P, Swetz K, Freeman M, et al. Ethical analysis of withdrawing ventricular assist device support. Mayo Clin Proc 2010;85:791–7. This is a case-based analysis and review of ethics literature reviewing principles that make withdrawal of LVAD support permissible. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sulmasy DP. Within you/without you: biotechnology, ontology, and ethics. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23 Suppl 1:69–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pellegrino ED. Decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment: a moral algorithm. JAMA. 2000;283:1065–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rhymes JA, McCullough LB, Luchi RJ, et al. Withdrawing very low-burden interventions in chronically ill patients. JAMA. 2000;283:1061–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Snyder L, Leffler C. Ethics manual: fifth edition. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:560–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mueller PS, Hook CC, Hayes DL. Ethical analysis of withdrawal of pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator support at the end of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78:959–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gostin LO. Deciding life and death in the courtroom. From Quinlan to Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Vacco—a brief history and analysis of constitutional protection of the ‘right to die’. JAMA. 1997;278:1523–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Singer PA, Robertson G, Roy DJ. Bioethics for clinicians: 6. Advance care planning. CMAJ. 1996;155:1689–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Rizzieri AG, Verheijde JL, Rady MY, McGregor JL. Ethical challenges with the left ventricular assist device as a destination therapy. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 2008;3:20. This is an analysis of many of the ethical and psychosocial issues faced by patients with LVAD. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    • Swetz K, Mueller P, Ottenberg A, et al. The use of advance directives among patients with left ventricular assist devices. Hosp Pract (Minneap) 2011;39:78–84. This retrospective study of 68 patients with LVADs demonstrated only 47% of patients had formal advance directives. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Swetz K, Freeman M, Mueller P, Park S. Clinical management of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in advanced heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1081. Epub 2010 May 26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bramstedt KA, Wenger NS. When withdrawal of life-sustaining care does more than allow death to take its course: the dilemma of left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2001;20:544–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wiegand DLM, Kalowes PG. Withdrawal of cardiac medications and devices. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2007;18:415–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Landzaat LH, Sinclair CT, Rosielle DA. Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1149. author reply 1149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    MacIver J, Ross HJ. Withdrawal of ventricular assist device support. J Palliat Care. 2005;21:151–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Von Gunten C, Weissman D. Symptom control for ventilator withdrawal in the dying patient, 2nd edition. Fast Facts and Concepts. July 2005; 34. Available at: http://www.eperc.mcw.edu/fastfact/ff_034.htm.
  50. 50.
    Campbell ML. How to withdraw mechanical ventilation: a systematic review of the literature. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2007;18:397–403. quiz 344–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith M. Swetz
    • 1
  • Abigale L. Ottenberg
    • 1
  • Monica R. Freeman
    • 1
  • Paul S. Mueller
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of General Internal MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations