Evidence-based management has improved long-term survival in patients with heart failure (HF). However, an unintended consequence of increased longevity is that patients with HF are exposed to a greater symptom burden over time. In addition to classic symptoms such as dyspnea and edema, patients with HF frequently suffer additional symptoms such as pain, depression, gastrointestinal distress, and fatigue. In addition to obvious effects on quality of life, untreated symptoms increase clinical events including emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and long-term mortality in a dose-dependent fashion. Symptom management in patients with HF consists of two key components: comprehensive symptom assessment and sufficient knowledge of available approaches to alleviate the symptoms. Successful treatment addresses not just the physical but also the emotional, social, and spiritual aspects of suffering. Despite a lack of formal experience during cardiovascular training, symptom management in HF can be learned and implemented effectively by cardiology providers. Co-management with palliative medicine specialists can add significant value across the spectrum and throughout the course of HF.

Aims Estimating survival is challenging in the terminal phase of advanced heart failure. Patients, families, and health‐care organizations would benefit from more reliable prognostic tools. The Palliative Performance Scale Version 2 (PPSv2) is a reliable and validated tool used to measure functional performance; higher scores indicate higher functionality. It has been widely used to estimate survival in patients with cancer but rarely used in patients with heart failure. The aim of this study was to identify prognostic cut‐points of the PPSv2 for predicting survival among patients with heart failure receiving home hospice care. Methods and results This retrospective cohort study included 1114 adult patients with a primary diagnosis of heart failure from a not‐for‐profit hospice agency between January 2013 and May 2017. The primary outcome was survival time. A Cox proportional‐hazards model and sensitivity analyses were used to examine the association between PPSv2 scores and survival time, controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to quantify the diagnostic performance of PPSv2 scores by survival time. Lower PPSv2 scores on admission to hospice were associated with decreased median (interquartile range, IQR) survival time [PPSv2 10 = 2 IQR: 1–5 days; PPSv2 20 = 3 IQR: 2–8 days] IQR: 55–207. The discrimination of the PPSv2 at baseline for predicting death was highest at 7 days [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.802], followed by an AUC of 0.774 at 14 days, an AUC of 0.736 at 30 days, and an AUC of 0.705 at 90 days. Conclusions The PPSv2 tool can be used by health‐care providers for prognostication of hospice‐enrolled patients with heart failure who are at high risk of near‐term death. It has the greatest utility in patients who have the most functional impairment.

No abstract

No abstract