Value of psychosocial evaluation for left ventricular assist device candidates.

OBJECTIVE: Left ventricular assist devices require a psychosocial assessment to determine candidacy despite limited data correlating with outcome. Our objective is to determine whether the Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant, a tool validated for transplant and widely used by left ventricular assist device programs, predicts left ventricular assist device program hospital readmissions and death. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of adults at the Cleveland Clinic with Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant scores before primary left ventricular assist device program implantation from April 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was unplanned hospital readmissions censored at death, transplantation, and transfer of care. The secondary outcome was death. RESULTS: There were 263 patients in the left ventricular assist device program with a median (Q1, Q3) Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant score of 16 (8, 28). During a median follow-up 1.2 years, 56 died, 65 underwent transplantation, and 21 had transferred care. There were 640 unplanned hospital readmissions among 250 patients with at least 1 outpatient visit at our center. In a multivariable analysis, Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant components but not total Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant score was associated with readmissions. Psychopathology (Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant C-IX) was associated with hemocompatibility (coefficient 0.21 ± standard error 0.11, P = .040) and cardiac (0.15 ± 0.065, P = .02) readmissions. Patient readiness was associated with noncardiac (Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant A-III, 0.24 ± 0.099, P = .016) and cardiac (Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant A-low total, 0.037 ± 0.014, P = .007) readmissions. Poor living environment (Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant B-VIII) was associated with device-related readmissions (0.83 ± 0.34, P = .014). Death was associated with organic psychopathology or neurocognitive impairment (Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant C-X, 0.59 ± 0.21, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Total Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant score was not associated with left ventricular assist device program readmission or mortality. However, we identified certain Stanford Integrated Psychosocial Assessment for Transplant components that were associated with outcome and could be used to create a left ventricular assist device program specific psychosocial tool.

The growing dilemma of legalized cannabis and heart transplantation.

This in-depth review discusses cannabis as it relates to heart transplantation and the growing dilemma of legalization around the world creating disparities in transplant candidacy. One will learn about two of the most common cannabinoids: Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). These cannabinoids are metabolized by cytochrome P-450 and P glycoprotein, which are essential for the metabolism of drugs for transplantation, such as calcineurin inhibitors. Addiction, withdrawal, and cannabis use disorder will be reviewed as well as hyperemesis syndrome. Maintaining adequate immunosuppression will depend on a variety of factors, including drug-drug interactions, pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids and chronicity of cannabis usage. These drug interactions are further confounded by varying concentrations of cannabis products available at medical dispensaries. One will also learn about the outcomes of transplant recipients using cannabis such as graft failure and the risk of infections. Although more research is needed to establish transplant guidelines, the available data is concerning and fairness in organ distribution should not vary by transplant program or institution.

The effect of transfusion of blood products on ventricular assist device support outcomes.

AIMS: Perioperative blood transfusions are common among patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The association between blood product transfusion at the time of LVAD implantation and mortality has not been described. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent continuous flow LVAD implantation at a single, large, tertiary care, academic centre, from 2008 to 2014. We assessed used of packed red blood cells (pRBCs), platelets, and fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality and acute right ventricular (RV) failure. Standard regression techniques were used to examine the association between blood product exposure and outcomes of interest. A total of 170 patients were included in this study (mean age: 56.5 ± 15.5 years, 79.4% men). Over a median follow-up period of 11.2 months, for every unit of pRBC transfused, the hazard for mortality increased by 4% [hazard ratio (HR) 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.07] and odds for acute RV failure increased by 10% (odds ratio 1.10; 95% CI 1.05-1.16). This association persisted for other blood products including platelets (HR for mortality per unit 1.20; 95% CI 1.08-1.32) and FFP (HR for mortality per unit 1.08; 95% CI 1.04-1.12). The most significant predictor of perioperative blood product exposure was a lower pre-implant haemoglobin. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative blood transfusions among patients undergoing LVAD implantation were associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality and acute RV failure. Of all blood products, FFP use was associated with worst outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether pre-implant interventions, such as intravenous iron supplementation, will improve the outcomes of LVAD candidates by decreasing need for transfusions.

Heart failure with recovered ejection fraction: clinical description, biomarkers, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that patients with heart failure (HF) who recover left ventricular function (HF-Recovered) have a distinct clinical phenotype, biology, and prognosis compared with patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF) and those with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Penn Heart Failure Study (PHFS) is a prospective cohort of 1821 chronic HF patients recruited from tertiary HF clinics. Participants were divided into 3 categories based on echocardiograms: HF-REF if EF was <50%, HF-PEF if EF was consistently ≥50%, and HF-Recovered if EF on enrollment in PHFS was ≥50% but prior EF was <50%. A significant portion of HF-Recovered patients had an abnormal biomarker profile at baseline, including 44% with detectable troponin I, although in comparison, median levels of brain natriuretic factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor-1, troponin I, and creatinine were greater in HF-REF and HF-PEF patients. In unadjusted Cox models over a maximum follow-up of 8.9 years, the hazard ratio for death, transplantation, or ventricular assist device placement in HF-REF patients was 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.8; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.5; P=0.013) compared with HF-Recovered patients. The unadjusted hazard ratio for cardiac hospitalization in HF-REF patients was 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.7; P<0.001) and in HF-PEF patients was 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.90-2.0; P=0.15) compared with HF-Recovered patients. Results were similar in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: HF-Recovered is associated with a better biomarker profile and event-free survival than HF-REF and HF-PEF. However, these patients still have abnormalities in biomarkers and experience a significant number of HF hospitalizations, suggesting persistent HF risk.