Trends in Palliative Care Use in Veterans With Severe Heart Failure Using a Large National Cohort

Mandawat, Anant; Heidenreich, Paul A.; Mandawat, Aditya; Bhatt, Deepak L.

doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.1687

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Forty of the 43 identified studies were non-intervention studies, using the following methods: national registry/chart review (Arestedt et al, 2018;Bakitas et al, 2017;Connor, Pyenson, Fitch, Spence, & Iwasaki, 2007;Formiga, Espel, Chivite, & Pujol, 2002;Johnson, Parsons, Raw, Williams, & Daley, 2009;Thorns, Gibbs, & Gibbs, 2001;Unroe et al, 2011;Zambroski et al, 2005), interviews (Gerlich et al, 2012;Glogowska et al, 2016;Gott et al, 2008;Hupcey, Penrod, & Fenstermacher, 2009;Kavalieratos, Mitchell et al, 2014;Kimani, Murray, & Grant, 2018;Murray et al, 2007;Selman, Beattie, Murtagh, & Higginson, 2009), retrospective surveys/questionnaire studies (Davidson, Abernethy, Newton, Clark, & Currow, 2013;Kuragaichi et al, 2018;Malik, Gysels, & Higginson, 2013;Mizuno et al, 2016;Wiskar, Celi, Walley, Fruhstorfer, & Rush, 2017), data analysis studies (Chattoo & Atkin, 2009;Greener, Quill, Amir, Szydlowski, & Gramling, 2014;Janssens & Reith, 2013;Mandawat, Heidenreich, Mandawat, & Bhatt, 2016), descriptive study (Abarshi et al, 2010;Cheung et al, 2013;Davidson et al, 2004;Formiga et al, 2008;Greener et al, 2014;Lagman, Walsh, Kunkle, LeGrand, & Davis, 2006;MartÃ-n-Lesende et al, 2016), a retrospective case-control study (Haydar, Lowe, Kahveci, Weatherford, & Finucane, 2004), observational studies …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies were conducted in 12 different countries: USA, Canada, UK, Sweden, Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Kenya, Australia, China, South Korea, and Japan. Care settings included accessing palliative care in the following three settings: hospital (Bakitas et al, 2013;Glogowska et al, 2016;Greener et al, 2014;Hupcey, Kitko, & Alonso, 2016;Johnson et al, 2009;Kavalieratos, Mitchell et al, 2014;Kim & Hwang, 2014;Kimani et al, 2018;Kuragaichi et al, 2018;Lagman et al, 2006;Mandawat et al, 2016;Mizuno et al, 2016;Rogers et al, 2017;Selman et al, 2009;Wiskar et al, 2017), at home (Davidson et al, 2013(Davidson et al, , 2004Enguidanos et al, 2005;Haydar et al, 2004;MartÃ-n-Lesende et al, 2016;Pattenden et al, 2013;Roig et al, 2006;Taitel et al, 2012;Wong et al, 2016), and outpatient settings (Gandesbery, Dobbie, & Gorodeski, 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers and facilitators to a ‘good death’ in heart failure: An integrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Heart failure is the final common pathway of many cardiovascular diseases, and yet many individuals with heart failure die hospitalised, suffering needlessly and experiencing what could be termed a 'bad death'. While it is essential to address the wishes of individuals and their families in improving the quality of end-of-life care for patients with heart failure, their unmet needs remain poorly understood. Aim: To systematically review the literature describing a good death or end-of-life care in heart failure and to synthesise identified studies to describe how elements of heart failure care may contribute to a good death. Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched from January 2001 to April 2018. The method of Whittemore and Knafl guided this review to identify emergent themes. Findings: Of the 436 studies identified, 43 met the inclusion criteria. Five themes associated with end-oflife care in heart failure and a good death were generated: (1) location of death, (2) preferred care, (3) palliative care utilisation, (4) interventions to improve the likelihood of a good death, (5) the intersection of individual, family, healthcare providers, and community-level factors. Discussion: This integrative review highlights a number of factors that prevent patients with heart failure from receiving palliative care, such as difficulty predicting mortality, late referral misconception of the role of palliative care and low availability of resources. Conclusion: This review has identified modifiable barriers and facilitator of a good death and emphasised the importance of considering the intersection of patient, provider and healthcare system issues in facilitating a good death for patients with heart failure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to a ‘good death’ in heart failure: An integrative review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent audit of 54 654 patients admitted to hospital with HF in England and Wales between 2013–14, only 4% were referred to SPC during admission . Two recent studies in the United States retrospectively analysed large HF databases to identify patients thought likely to have SPC needs . These studies identified 4474 and 32 270 patients, respectively, thought to have SPC needs, of whom 7.6% and 9.6% were seen by SPC services.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which patients with heart failure should receive specialist palliative care?

Campbell

Petrie

Jackson

et al. 2018

European J of Heart Fail

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[280][281][282][283] Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, palliative care use declined from 6% in 1997 to 2% in 2013. 284 The reasons underpinning these low referral rates remain unclear, but provider misperceptions about palliative services are a likely contributor.…”

Section: Palliative Care Use and Perceptions In Cardiovascular Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Diepen¹,

Katz²,

Albert³

et al. 2017

Circulation

1,285

1,165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities. Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a low-cardiac-output state resulting in life-threatening end-organ hypoperfusion and hypoxia.1,2 Acute myocardial infarction (MI) with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains the most frequent cause of CS. 1,3 Advances in reperfusion therapy have been associated with improvements in survival, but significant regional disparities in evidence-based care have been reported, and in-hospital mortality remains high (27%-51%).1,4-9 Management recommendations are distributed between disease-specific statements and guidelines, and a dedicated and comprehensive clinical resource in this area is lacking. Thus, consolidating the evidence to define contemporary best medical and surgical CS practices for both MI-associated CS and other types of CS may be an important step in knowledge translation to help attenuate disparities in evidence-based care.Regional systems of care coupled with treatment algorithms have improved survival in high-acuity time-sensitive conditions such as MI, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), and trauma.10-12 Applying a similar framework to CS management may lead to similar improvements in survival, and CS systems of care are emerging within existing regional cardiovascular emergency care networks; however, guidance from a national expert group on structure and systems of care has not been available. 13,14 Accordingly, the purposes of this American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on CS are to summarize our contemporary understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and in-hospital best care practices into a single clinical resource document; to suggest a stepwise management algorithm that integrates medical, surgical, and mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapies; and to propose a Mission: Lifelinesupported pathway for the development of integrated regionalized CS systems of care. DEFINITION OF CSAcute cardiac hemodynamic instability may result from disorders that impair function of the myocardium, valves, conduction system, or pericardium, either in isolation HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVESBefore the routine use of early revascularization, MIassociated CS had an in-hospital mortality exceeding 80%. A registry trial of 250 patients with acute MI described the association between bedside physical examination (Killip classification) for the as...

show abstract

Trends in Palliative Care Use in Veterans With Severe Heart Failure Using a Large National Cohort

Cited by 36 publications

References 6 publications

Barriers and facilitators to a ‘good death’ in heart failure: An integrative review

Barriers and facilitators to a ‘good death’ in heart failure: An integrative review

Which patients with heart failure should receive specialist palliative care?

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About