Use of Risk Models to Predict Death in the Next Year Among Individual Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure

Importance: The clinical practice guidelines for heart failure recommend the use of validated risk models to estimate prognosis. Understanding how well models identify individuals who will die in the next year informs decision making for advanced treatments and hospice. Objective: To quantify how risk models calculated in routine practice estimate more than 50% 1-year mortality among ambulatory patients with heart failure who die in the subsequent year. Design, Setting, and Participants: Ambulatory adults with heart failure from 3 integrated health systems were enrolled between 2005 and 2008. The probability of death was estimated using the Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM) and the Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure (MAGGIC) risk calculator. Baseline covariates were collected from electronic health records. Missing covariates were imputed. Estimated mortality was compared with actual mortality at both population and individual levels. Main Outcomes and Measures: One-year mortality. Results: Among 10930 patients with heart failure, the median age was 77 years, and 48.0% of these patients were female. In the year after study enrollment, 1661 patients died (15.9% by life-table analysis). At the population level, 1-year predicted mortality among the cohort was 9.7% for the SHFM (C statistic of 0.66) and 17.5% for the MAGGIC risk calculator (C statistic of 0.69). At the individual level, the SHFM predicted a more than 50% probability of dying in the next year for 8 of the 1661 patients who died (sensitivity for 1-year death was 0.5%) and for 5 patients who lived at least a year (positive predictive value, 61.5%). The MAGGIC risk calculator predicted a more than 50% probability of dying in the next year for 52 of the 1661 patients who died (sensitivity, 3.1%) and for 63 patients who lived at least a year (positive predictive value, 45.2%). Conversely, the SHFM estimated that 8496 patients (77.8%) had a less than 15% probability of dying at 1 year, yet this lower-risk end of the score range captured nearly two-thirds of deaths (n = 997); similarly, the MAGGIC risk calculator estimated a probability of dying of less than 25% for the majority of patients who died at 1 year (n = 914). Conclusions and Relevance: Although heart failure risk models perform reasonably well at the population level, they do not reliably predict which individual patients will die in the next year

Defining Metrics for Short Term Success After LVAD Implant: An Analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Registry

Purpose: While clinical trials evaluating left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology typically use composite outcomes to assess efficacy, composite outcomes including patient reported outcomes (PROs) have not been utilized as benchmarks for LVAD implant center performance improvement initiatives or quality ranking. The objective of the study was to assess the feasibility of generating a patient composite outcome measure including PROs from a real world registry. Methods: Short term (ST, 180 days) adverse events (AEs) and mortality were tallied for Intermacs patients undergoing LVAD implant between 1/2012 and 12/2019. ST postoperative events included mortality on first device and frequencies of stroke, reoperation (device malfunction/other), right heart failure (RHF), prolonged respiratory failure, and/or dialysis on first device. Logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios for mortality for each AE. Separately, the EuroQOL visual analog scale (VAS) was assessed at baseline and 180 days in ST survivors. Results: Of 20,115 patients, 37% suffered at least one event, most commonly death, reoperation and stroke (Table, column A). Stroke, prolonged respiratory failure, and dialysis attributed the most to ST mortality (Table, column B). Of the 16725 patients alive at 180 days, 43% completed a VAS with 82.0% showing VAS improvement. Renal failure and RHF contributed most to failure to improve VAS (Figure). Conclusion: Assessment of a ST composite outcome metric after LVAD implant from a real world data source is feasible but limited by incomplete PRO reporting. ST adverse events display differential effects on mortality and PROs that can be used in development of global rank outcome scores. While reoperation is common, stroke, prolonged respiratory failure and renal failure conferred highest risks of ST deaths within Intermacs. Assessment of PROs should become a priority for LVAD centers to allow the field to generate a complete assessment of patient-centered outcomes

“When I do have some time, rather than spend it polishing silver, I want to spend it with my grandkids”: a qualitative exploration of patient values following left ventricular assist device implantation

Abstract Background Values are broadly understood to have implications for how individuals make decisions and cope with serious illness stressors, yet it remains uncertain how patients and their family and friend caregivers discuss, reflect upon, and act on their values in the post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation context. This study aimed to explore the values elicitation experiences of patients with an LVAD in the post-implantation period. Methods Qualitative descriptive study of LVAD recipients. Socio-demographics and patient resource use were analyzed using descriptive statistics and semi-structured interview data using thematic analysis. Adult (> 18 years) patients with an LVAD receiving care at an outpatient clinic in the Southeastern United States. Results Interviewed patients (n = 27) were 30–76 years, 59% male, 67% non-Hispanic Black, 70% married/living with a partner, and 70% urban-dwelling. Three broad themes of patient values elicitation experiences emerged: 1) LVAD implantation prompts deep reflection about life and what is important, 2) patient values are communicated in various circumstances to convey personal goals and priorities to caregivers and clinicians, and 3) patients leverage their values for strength and guidance in navigating life post-LVAD implantation. LVAD implantation was an impactful experience often leading to reevaluation of patients’ values; these values became instrumental to making health decisions and coping with stressors during the post-LVAD implantation period. Patient values arose within broad, informal exchanges and focused, decision-making conversations with their caregiver and the healthcare team. Conclusions Clinicians should consider assessing the values of patients post-implantation to facilitate shared understanding of their goals/priorities and identify potential changes in their coping