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

Multidisciplinary Care in Heart Failure Services

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Heart Failure Society of American 2022 guidelines for heart failure (HF) recommend a multidisciplinary team approach for patients with HF. The multidisciplinary HF team-based approach decreases the hospitalization rate for HF and health care costs and improves adherence to self-care and the use of guideline-directed medical therapy. This article proposes the optimal multidisciplinary team structure and each team member's delineated role to achieve institutional goals and metrics for HF care. The proposed HF-specific multidisciplinary team comprises cardiologists, surgeons, advanced practice providers, clinical pharmacists, specialty nurses, dieticians, physical therapists, psychologists, social workers, immunologists, and palliative care clinicians. A standardized multidisciplinary HF team-based approach should be incorporated to optimize the structure, minimize the redundancy of clinical responsibilities among team members, and improve clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction in their HF care.

Mechanical Circulatory Support as a Bridge-to-Transplant Candidacy: When Does It Work?

Durable mechanical circulatory support (dMCS) devices can be offered as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) or as a bridge-to-candidacy (BTC) strategy for candidates with contraindications to transplant listing, including pulmonary hypertension (BTC-PH), morbid obesity (BTC-Obes), social issues (BTC-Soc), or chronic illness (BTC-Illness). An understanding of the trajectory of BTC patients could guide future triage of advanced heart failure patients who are not candidates for transplantation. We performed a retrospective review all patients who underwent dMCS implantation as either BTT (206 patients) or BTC (114 patients) at our center from January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2020. There was no significant difference in mortality between BTC patients and BTT patients. Compared with the BTT group, significantly more patients in the BTC-PH group were transplanted (81% vs. 63%; p < 0.05) and significantly fewer patients in the BTC-Obes group (44%; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc group (39%; p < 0.05) were transplanted. Additionally, the readmission rate was higher for those in the BTC-Obes (6.2 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) and BTC-Soc (3.9 vs. 2.1; p < 0.05) groups. Bridge-to-candidacy patients generally had poorer post-dMCS trajectories than BTT patients. Centers should not be dissuaded from pursuing a BTC strategy for qualified patients; however, careful consideration of potential adverse outcomes is necessary.