Integrating a palliative approach in a transcatheter heart valve program: bridging innovations in the management of severe aortic stenosis and best end-of-life practice.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent structural heart disease and affects primarily older adults in their last decade of life. If the risk for surgery is high, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the treatment of choice for many patients with suitable anatomy who are likely to derive significant benefit from this innovative and minimally invasive approach. In a large transcatheter heart valve (THV) centre that offers TAVI as one of the treatment options, of 565 consecutive referrals for the assessment of eligibility for TAVI over 18 months, 78 (14%) were deemed unsuitable candidates for TAVI or higher risk surgery by the interdisciplinary Heart Team because of their advanced disease, excessive frailty or comorbid burden. Concerns were raised for patients for whom TAVI is not an option. The integration of a palliative approach in a THV program offers opportunities to adopt best end-of-life practices while promoting innovative approaches for treatment. An integrated palliative approach to care focuses on meeting a patient's full range of physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs at all stages of a life-limiting illness, and is well suited for the severe AS and TAVI population. A series of interventions that reflect best practices and current evidence were adopted in collaboration with the Palliative Care Team and are currently under evaluation in a large TAVI centre. Changes include the introduction of a palliative approach in patient assessment and education, the measurement of symptoms, improved clarity about responsibility for communication and follow-up, and triggering referrals to palliative care services.

Exposing barriers to end-of-life communication in heart failure: an integrative review.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EOL) communication is lacking despite patients with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers desiring it. AIM: To review the existing literature to identify barriers that inhibit EOL communication in the HF population. METHOD: We chose an integrative literature review method and began by searching CINAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Health Source Nursing Academic, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR), dissertations and theses searches through the University of Victoria and through Proquest from 1995 to 2011. DATA EVALUATION: EOL communication regarding wishes, prognosis and options for care rarely happen. We noted that patients lacked understanding of HF, feared engaging health care professionals (HCP), did not wish to talk about EOL, or waited for HCPs to initiate the conversation. HCPs lacked communication skills, focused on curative therapies and found diagnosing and prognosticating HF difficult. Limited time and space for conversations played a role. CONCLUSION: The challenge of diagnosing and prognosticating HF, its unpredictable trajectory, HCP inexperience in recognizing nearing EOL and lack of communication skills lead to HCPs avoiding EOL conversations. Four categories of barriers to communication were identified: patient/caregiver, HCP, disease-specific and organizational challenges.