ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) experience a major symptom burden and an overall reduction of quality of life. However, supportive care (SC) remains an under-utilized resource for these patients. Among the many existing barriers to integrating SC into routine care, identifying patients with SC needs remains challenging. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is an important predictor of SC needs in patients with HF. Methods and Results: We used the shortened version KCCQ-12 as a screening tool for SC need in our ambulatory HF patient population using a KCCQ-12 summary score of <29 as the cut-off. Of the 456 patients who completed the KCCQ-12, 41 (9%) were predicted to have SC needs. Demographics, medical history, biochemical parameters, echocardiographic assessment and medical treatment were similar between the two groups of patients. However, patients with KCCQ-12 <29 were more symptomatic based on both New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification and American Heart Association (AHA) staging with a higher prevalence of depression. We established a multidisciplinary SC clinic and the profile and outcomes of patients with SC needs that were referred and followed at our SC clinic were also evaluated. Twenty-three patients were referred to our SC clinic: 2 died before being seen, 1 refused SC and 20 received SC. Of these 20 patients, 11 died and 9 are currently being followed. Median survival after starting the SC clinic is 3 months. In the original SC cohort of 23, 17 patients had available KCCQ-12 summary scores. However, only 6 out of 17 (35%) had KCCQ-12 scores <29, indicating the need for additional assessment tools in this patient population. Conclusions: The magnitude of unmet supportive care needs in patients with HF is significant. While the KCCQ-12 questionnaire is a useful tool to identify patients with SC, serial clinical evaluation, establishment of a SC clinic and prompt referral are essential for patients needing supportive care.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: This study examined (1) accuracy of clinician prediction of survival (CPS) by palliative practitioners on first assessment with the use of standardised palliative tools, (2) factors affecting accuracy, (3) potential impact on clinical care. METHODS: A multi-site prospective study (n=1530) was used. CPS was divided into four time periods (<=2wks, >2 to 6wks, >6 to 12wks and >12wks). Multivariate analysis was assessed on six predictor variables. RESULTS: Overall, median survival of the sample was only 5 weeks. CPS category was accurate only 38.6% of the time, with 44.6% patients dying before the predicted time period. Of six candidate variables, on multivariate analysis only (i) the clinical time periods themselves and (ii) Palliative Performance Scale <=50 predicted for prognostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: CPS, even by palliative practitioners, remains overly optimistic with the existence of the horizon effect. This raises the question in that these individuals may have been potentially overtreated.
