Literature DB >> 32740124

The Impact of a High-risk Psychosocial Assessment on Outcomes After Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

Michelle M Kittleson1, Heather Barone2, Robert M Cole1, Megan Olman1, Alisa Fishman1, Linda Olanisa1, Carmelita Runyan2, Jennifer Hajj2, Newman Huie2, Michael Lindsay2, Nancy Sun1, Eric Luong1, Susan Cheng1, Elizabeth Passano2, Jon A Kobashigawa1, Fardad Esmailian2, Danny Ramzy2, Jaime D Moriguchi1.   

Abstract

Patient adherence is vital to the success of durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS), and the pre-MCS assessment of adherence by the multidisciplinary advanced heart failure team is a critical component of the evaluation. We assessed the impact of a high-risk psychosocial assessment before durable MCS implantations on post-MCS outcomes. Between January 2010 and April 2018, 319 patients underwent durable MCS at our center. We excluded those who died or were transplanted before discharge. The remaining 203 patients were grouped by pre-MCS psychosocial assessment: high-risk (26; 12.8%) versus acceptable risk (177; 87.2%). We compared clinical characteristics, nonadherence, and outcomes between groups. High-risk patients were younger (48 vs. 56; p = 0.006) and more often on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation at durable MCS placement (26.9% vs. 9.0%; p = 0.007). These patients had a higher incidence of post-MCS nonadherence including missed clinic appointments, incorrect medication administration, and use of alcohol and illicit drugs. After a mean follow-up of 15.3 months, 100% of high-risk patients had unplanned hospitalizations compared with 76.8% of acceptable-risk patients. Per year, high-risk patients had a median of 2.9 hospitalizations per year vs. 1.2 hospitalizations per year in acceptable-risk patients. While not significant, there were more driveline infections over the follow-up period in high-risk patients (27% vs. 14.7%), deaths (27% vs. 18%), and fewer heart transplants (53.8% vs. 63.8%).The pre-MCS psychosocial assessment is associated with post-MCS evidence of nonadherence and unplanned hospitalizations. Attention to pre-MCS assessment of psychosocial risk factors is essential to optimize durable MCS outcomes.
Copyright © ASAIO 2020.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32740124      PMCID: PMC8100754          DOI: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001229

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ASAIO J        ISSN: 1058-2916            Impact factor:   3.826


  15 in total

Review 1.  Nonadherence in the Advanced Heart Failure Population.

Authors:  Jonathan Gandhi; Andrew McCue; Robert Cole
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2016-04

2.  Standardized Psychosocial Assessment Before Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Authors:  Brett W Sperry; Asad Ikram; Paulino A Alvarez; Antonio L Perez; Kay Kendall; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Randall C Starling
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 8.790

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Systolic heart failure.

Authors:  John J V McMurray
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-01-21       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary.

Authors:  David Feldman; Salpy V Pamboukian; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Emma Birks; Katherine Lietz; Stephanie A Moore; Jeffrey A Morgan; Francisco Arabia; Mary E Bauman; Hoger W Buchholz; Mario Deng; Marc L Dickstein; Aly El-Banayosy; Tonya Elliot; Daniel J Goldstein; Kathleen L Grady; Kylie Jones; Katarzyna Hryniewicz; Ranjit John; Annemarie Kaan; Shimon Kusne; Matthias Loebe; M Patricia Massicotte; Nader Moazami; Paul Mohacsi; Martha Mooney; Thomas Nelson; Francis Pagani; William Perry; Evgenij V Potapov; J Eduardo Rame; Stuart D Russell; Erik N Sorensen; Benjamin Sun; Martin Strueber; Abeel A Mangi; Michael G Petty; Joseph Rogers
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 10.247

Review 5.  Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events.

Authors:  James K Kirklin; Francis D Pagani; Robert L Kormos; Lynne W Stevenson; Elizabeth D Blume; Susan L Myers; Marissa A Miller; J Timothy Baldwin; James B Young; David C Naftel
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 10.247

6.  Utility of the Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation in Patients Undergoing Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

Authors:  Meghana Halkar; Amy S Nowacki; Kay Kendall; Nephertiti Efeovbokhan; Eiran Z Gorodeski; Nader Moazami; Randall C Starling; James B Young; Sangjin Lee; W H Wilson Tang
Journal:  Prog Transplant       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 1.187

7.  Continuous home ambulatory intravenous inotropic drug therapy in severe heart failure: safety and cost efficacy.

Authors:  A P Sindone; A M Keogh; P S Macdonald; C J McCosker; A F Kaan
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.749

8.  Do Psychosocial Factors Have Any Impact on Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation?

Authors:  Scott Lundgren; Brian D Lowes; Ronald Zolty; Adam Burdorf; Eugenia Raichlin; John Y Um; Cecilia Poon
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.872

9.  Substance abuse at the time of left ventricular assist device implantation is associated with increased mortality.

Authors:  Rebecca Cogswell; Elisa Smith; Aimee Hamel; Lillian Bauman; Angela Herr; Sue Duval; Ranjit John; Deborah Roman; Sirtaz Adatya; Monica Colvin-Adams; Daniel Garry; Cindy Martin; Emil Missov; Marc Pritzker; Justin Roberts; Peter Eckman
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 10.247

10.  Definitions, variants, and causes of nonadherence with medication: a challenge for tailored interventions.

Authors:  Jacqueline G Hugtenburg; Lonneke Timmers; Petra Jm Elders; Marcia Vervloet; Liset van Dijk
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-07-10       Impact factor: 2.711

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.