Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status.

Published byJared Booker Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status measures Predicting patients at risk for poor global outcomes after DT MCS therapy INTERMACS 9 th Annual Meeting May 15- 16, 2015 Quality of Life Session

2 Actuarial survival for primary device implant, stratified by device type. Error bars indicate ± 1 SE. Patients are censored at transplant and recovery. CF, continuous flow; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; PF, pulsatile flow; TAH, total arti... Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, et al., Sixth INTERMACS annual report: A 10,000-patient database. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 2014;33(6):555 – 564. Improvement in Survival after LVAD Implant

3 Actuarial survival for primary device implant, stratified by device type. Error bars indicate ± 1 SE. Patients are censored at transplant and recovery. CF, continuous flow; LVAD, left ventricular assist device; PF, pulsatile flow; TAH, total arti... Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, et al., Sixth INTERMACS annual report: A 10,000-patient database. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, 2014;33(6):555 – 564. Improvement in Survival after LVAD Implant ↓ adverse events

4 The Time is Right … to Assess Quality of Life after LVAD Implant Since 1948, when the World Health Organization defined health as being not only the absence of disease and infirmity, but also the presence of physical, mental, and social well-being, quality of life issues have become steadily more important in health care practice and research. Testa & Simonson, NEJM, 1996

5 What is the Clinical Importance of Measuring QOL? Clinical Inform shared decision making Diagnosis or screening Monitoring patients in routine clinical care Evaluating benefits and risks of treatment Prognosis Quality assessment / improvement

6 Why Study QOL Outcomes? Research ● Determine the benefits of one treatment versus another regarding outcomes that are important to patients (e.g., HRQOL) ● Differentiate HRQOL benefits of two therapies with marginal differences in mortality or morbidity ● Estimate the burden of different diseases ● Compare impact of different diseases on functioning and well-being ● Inform relationships between QOL outcomes and clinical outcomes

7 INTERMACS HRQOL Abstracts and Publications Abstracts (published): 7 abstracts Articles (published): Beyond survival: Recommendations from INTERMACS for Assessing Function and Quality of Life with Mechanical Circulatory Support Grady KL, Warner Stevenson L, Pagani FD, Teuteberg J, Pamboukian SV, Birks E, Moore S, Kirklin JK. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012 Nov;31(11):1158-64. Overall Quality of Life Improves to Similar Levels after Mechanical Circulatory Support Regardless of Severity of Heart Failure before Implantation Grady KL, Naftel D, Stevenson L, Dew MA, Weidner G, Pagani FD, Kirklin JK, Myers S, Baldwin T, Young J. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014 April;33 (4): 412-21. Change in Health-Related Quality of Life from Before to After Destination Therapy Mechanical Circulatory Support is Similar for Older and Younger Patients: Analyses from INTERMACS Grady KL, Naftel DC, Myers S, Dew MA, Weidner G, Spertus JA, Idrissi K, Lee HB, McGee EC, Kirklin JK. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Feb;34(2):213-21. Articles (submitted): Age and gender differences in HRQOL and factors related to change in HRQOL from before to 6 months after LVAD implantation: Findings from INTERMACS Grady KL, Wissman S, Naftel D, Myers S, Gelijns A, Moskowitz A, Pagani F, Young J, Kirklin JK. J Heart Lung Transplant.

8 INTERMACS Pre-implant Data for June 2006 through March 2015 for Patients at Primary Implant EQ-5D Completion by Implant Year Implant YearCompletedNot CompletedTotal 200626 (27%)70 (73%)96 2007100 (30%)237 (70%)337 2008301 (41%)439 (59%)740 2009457 (45%)553 (55%)1010 2010903 (55%)747 (45%)1650 20111025 (53%)895 (47%)1920 20121356 (59%)937 (41%)2293 20131553 (57%)1190 (43%)2743 20141465 (55%)1204 (45%)2669 2015343 (59%)238 (41%)581 Total7529 (54%)6510 (46%)14039 INTERMACS HRQOL Data Capture across Time

9 INTERMACS Pre-implant Data for June 2006 through March 2015 for Patients at Primary Implant EQ-5D Completion (with non-completion reasons) by Implant Year Implant YearCompleted Not completed - reason other than too sick Not completed – too sick Total 200626 (27%)21 (22%)49 (51%)96 2007100 (30%)79 (23%)158 (47%)337 2008301 (41%)208 (28%)231 (31%)740 2009457 (45%)304 (30%)249 (25%)1010 2010903 (55%)449 (27%)298 (18%)1650 20111025 (53%)531 (28%)364 (19%)1920 20121356 (59%)613 (27%)324 (14%)2293 20131553 (57%)807 (29%)383 (14%)2743 20141465 (55%)726 (27%)478 (18%)2669 2015343 (59%)141 (24%)97 (17%)581 Total7529 (54%)3879 (27%)2631 (19%)14039 INTERMACS HRQOL Data Capture across Time

10 Grady KL, Wissman S, Naftel D, Myers S, Gelijns A, Moskowitz A, Pagani F, Young J, Kirklin JK I will not discuss off label use and/or investigational use of drugs/devices. Quantifying the Impact of Adverse Events on Health-Related Quality of Life Early after Implant

11 Background –Risk factors for poor HRQOL after LVAD implant are unknown –Understanding risk factors May inform selection criteria for device implant Reinforce the ongoing need to improve device technology, in order to reduce rates of adverse events Purpose –Identify pre and post implant factors related to change in overall HRQOL from before to 6 months after LVAD implantation –Rationale for 6month post implant time period Patients are adjusting to “life on a device” while potentially dealing with early post implant adverse events

12 Pool: Adult primary CFLVADs implanted Jun 2006 – Mar 2013 (follow-up thru March 2014) N=7353 Pre-implant patients, n=7353 Patients with completed* pre-implant EQ-5D VAS n=5640 (77%) Patients with both completed* pre-implant and 6 month post implant EQ-5D VAS n= 2748 (37% of total cohort) 6 month post implant patients, n=5931 patients with completed* 6 month EQ-5D VAS n=3353 (57%) Study Cohort, n=7353 (from 133 sites) METHODS *completed includes patients who filled out the EQ-5D and also those patients captured as ‘too sick’. ‘Too sick’ patients were assigned 0 for the VAS and ‘extreme problems’ for the 3 physical dimensions of Mobility, Self Care and Usual Activities

13 Pool: Adult primary CFLVADs implanted Jun 2006 – Mar 2013 (follow-up thru March 2014) N=7353 (133 sites) Pre-implant patients, n=7353 Patients with completed* pre-implant EQ-5D VAS n=5640 (77%) Patients with both completed* pre-implant and 6 month post implant EQ-5D VAS n= 2748 (37% of total cohort) 6 month post implant patients, n=5931 patients with completed* 6 month EQ-5D VAS n=3353 (57%) Study Cohort, n=7353 *completed includes patients who filled out the EQ-5D and also those patients captured as ‘too sick’. ‘Too sick’ patients were assigned 0 for the VAS and ‘extreme problems’ for the 3 physical dimensions of Mobility, Self Care and Usual Activities

14 METHODS (cont.) Procedures Approval from all INTERMACS site IRBs Written consent from patients Patients completed a self-report HRQOL survey pre- implant and post-implant at 3 and 6 months Medical records data collected per INTERMACS protocols HRQOL instrument EQ – 5D – 3L Survey – Generic, self-report health profile – HRQOL items: 1 VAS scale (health status) and 5 questions – If incomplete EQ-5D reason is “too sick”, VAS is assigned 0 – Reliable and valid & norms in multiple populations Statistics Pearson correlations and multiple regression analyses

15 Mobility I have no problems in walking about  I have some problems in walking about  I am confined to bed  Self-Care I have no problems with self-care  I have some problems washing or dressing myself  I am unable to wash or dress myself  Usual Activities ( e.g. work, study, housework, family or leisure activities) I have no problems with performing my usual activities  I have some problems with performing my usual activities  I am unable to perform my usual activities  Pain/Discomfort I have no pain or discomfort  I have moderate pain or discomfort  I have extreme pain or discomfort  Anxiety/Depression I am not anxious or depressed  I am moderately anxious or depressed  I am extremely anxious or depressed  EQ-5D-3L Health Questionnaire English version for the U.S. HRQOL Instrument

16 RESULTS RESULTS Characteristics of CF LVAD Patients Pre-implant Pre-implant LVAD with EQ-5D data (n=5640) Pre-implant LVAD w/out EQ-5D data (n=1713)p-value Age at implant (mean yr+ SD) 56.7+12.8657.1+13.010.22 Male (%)78.680.80.05 Race (% white)70.567.70.02 Married at implant (%)66.965.30.22 >HS education (%)53.448.60.004 INTERMACS profile at implant (%) 115.310.8< 0.0001 240.835.80.0002 327.226.40.55 412.418.9<0.0001 52.34.8<0.0001 61.32.00.04 71.20.70.04

17 Months Post Implant Proportion of Patients Pre-implant 88% 77% 60% 4% 0% 8% 11% 12% 0% 22% 17% 1% MCS Competing Outcomes Depiction & Rates of EQ-5D Completion after implant Alive (device in place) Txpl Dead Recovery April 2008 – March 2013 **completed forms includes patients who filled out the EQ-5D and also those patients captured as ‘too sick’ to complete the EQ-5D. ‘Too sick’ patients were assigned a value of 0 for the VAS and ‘extreme problems’ for the 3 physical dimensions of Mobility, Self Care and Usual Activities 100%

18 VAS Scores pre and post implant & change in VAS scores over time Pre-implant 6 months VAS (n=5640**) (n=3353**) 0 – 25 2714 (48.1%) 404 (12.1%) 26 – 501589 (28.2%) 347 (10.3%) 51 – 75 908 (16.1%) 974 (29.0%) 76 – 100 429 (7.6%) 1628 (48.6%) Total5640 (100%) 3353 (100%) Change in VAS (n=2748*) n % Increase >20 163759.6% 11 – 20254 9.2% 1 – 1027410.0% Decrease (or no change) 0 – 1039614.4% 11 – 20 62 2.3% > 20 125 4.6% * Only includes paired data (patients with both pre and post 6 months completed EQ-5D) ** completed forms includes patients who filled out the EQ-5D and also those patients captured as ‘too sick’ to complete the EQ-5D. ‘Too sick’ patients were assigned a value of 0 for the VAS.

19 Factors Associated with Change in HRQOL Pre-implant – 6 months post implant Risk Factors Estimates (SE)p value Pre-implant conditions INTERMACS Level 1 5.0 (1.6)0.002 BTT: Listed -3.7 (1.2)0.002 Pre COPD -5.1 (1.8)0.005 Alcohol abuse -4.1 (1.7)0.02 Pre-implant VAS Score -0.76 (0.02) < 0.0001 Clinical Course BTT: Unlikely at 6 months -9.6 (2.9)0.0009 BTT: Mod likely at 6 months -4.8 (1.9)0.01 NYHA 4 at 6 months-15.2 (2.9) < 0.0001 Events within first 6 months Renal Dysfunction -5.3 (2.5)0.03 Respiratory Failure -4.8 (1.8)0.007 Neurological Dysfunction -5.5 (1.9) 0.004 Infection -2.8 (1.1)0.01 Intercept = 64.2, R 2 = 41.3%, n=2748 HRQOL=health-related quality of life; INTERMACS=interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support; BTT=bridge to transplant; COPD=chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; VAS=visual analog scale Negative coefficients indicate the decrement in change The Intercept indicates the amount of change (improvement) for a patient with no ‘risk factors’

20 Prediction of VAS at 6 months post implant, n=2748 Level 1 Pre-implant: Critical Cardiogenic Shock (n=337) Visual Analog Score (VAS) Time Course Level 1 Events during 1 st 6 months Renal Respiratory Neuro Infection No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Predictions of post implant VAS score by pre implant INTERMACS Profile

21 Prediction of VAS at 6 months post implant, n=2748 Level 2 Pre-implant: Progressive Decline (n=1119) Predictions of post implant VAS score by pre implant INTERMACS Profile Visual Analog Score (VAS) Time Course Level 2 Events during 1 st 6 months Renal Respiratory Neuro Infection No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

22 Prediction of VAS at 6 months post implant, n=2748 Level 3 Pre-implant: Stable but Inotrope Dependent (n=819) Predictions of post implant VAS score by pre implant INTERMACS Profile Visual Analog Score (VAS) Time Course Level 3 Events during 1 st 6 months Renal Respiratory Neuro Infection No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

23 Predictions of VAS at 6 months post implant, n=2748 Levels 4 - 7 Pre-implant (n=473) Predictions of post implant VAS score by pre implant INTERMACS Profile Visual Analog Score (VAS) Time Course Levels 4-7 Events during 1 st 6 months Renal Respiratory Neuro Infection No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

24 CONCLUSIONS Patients who are the sickest have the greatest opportunity for major improvement in HRQOL after implant Patients with co-morbidities that prevent listing for HT may have limited HRQOL improvement Adverse events have a detrimental impact on HRQOL at 6 months after implant

25 IMPLICATIONS These findings support the ongoing need to – evaluate co-morbid risks before implant – continue to improve device technology to enhance post implant HRQOL

Download ppt "Presentations: Quantifying the impact of adverse events on HRQOL early after implant Patient selection and estimation of prognosis using health status."

Similar presentations

Comparing different treatments How can we decide?.

Comparing different treatments How can we decide?.
Are we ready to implant LVAD’s in the less sick? Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine and Epi/Pop Health Albert Einstein College of Medicine Associate.

Are we ready to implant LVAD’s in the less sick? Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine and Epi/Pop Health Albert Einstein College of Medicine Associate.
Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?

Can Comparative Effectiveness Study Tell Us What Is The Best Therapy For Class IV Heart Failure? Beta blockers or LVADs?
Hemolysis in Patients Supported with Durable, Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy Jason N. Katz, MD,MHS; Brian C. Jensen, MD; Patricia P.

Hemolysis in Patients Supported with Durable, Long-Term Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy Jason N. Katz, MD,MHS; Brian C. Jensen, MD; Patricia P.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2013.

Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence May–June 2013.
Estimating Benefit in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients MedaMACS Progress Report 2014 Garrick C. Stewart, MD Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Estimating Benefit in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients MedaMACS Progress Report 2014 Garrick C. Stewart, MD Brigham and Women’s Hospital.
1 Interactive Introduction cost effectiveness Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D. Psychotherapeutic Centrum ‘De Viersprong’, Halsteren

1 Interactive Introduction cost effectiveness Jan J. v. Busschbach, Ph.D. Psychotherapeutic Centrum ‘De Viersprong’, Halsteren
Equipoise Does Not Exist for REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD Heart and Vascular Center Director, Florida Chairman of Cardiology Medical Director of Heart Failure,

Equipoise Does Not Exist for REVIVE IT Andrew Boyle, MD Heart and Vascular Center Director, Florida Chairman of Cardiology Medical Director of Heart Failure,
Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.

Predicting Major Outcomes after MCSD Implant 1 Risk Factors for Death, Transplant, and Recovery James Kirklin, MD David Naftel, PhD.
® Introduction Mental Health Predictors of Pain and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Olivia D. Lara, K. Ashok Kumar MD FRCS Sandra Burge,

® Introduction Mental Health Predictors of Pain and Function in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Olivia D. Lara, K. Ashok Kumar MD FRCS Sandra Burge,
Click to edit Master subtitle style The Role of Attachment in brief group therapy for depression: An empirical study Dr Jo Wilson Professor Phil Richardson.

Click to edit Master subtitle style The Role of Attachment in brief group therapy for depression: An empirical study Dr Jo Wilson Professor Phil Richardson.
1 EQ-5D, HUI and SF-36 Of the shelf instruments…..

1 EQ-5D, HUI and SF-36 Of the shelf instruments…..
What have we learned? What is next? Panel B: Functional Capacity, Quality of Life and Outcomes H.Functional Capacity I.Neurocognitive Assessment J.Quality.

What have we learned? What is next? Panel B: Functional Capacity, Quality of Life and Outcomes H.Functional Capacity I.Neurocognitive Assessment J.Quality.
Rivka Herman 1 *,RN. M.Sc Michal Libergal 1 *, PhD; David Rott 2, MD Michal Libergal 1 *, PhD; David Rott 2, MD 1 Henrietta Szold Hadassah-Hebrew University.

Rivka Herman 1 *,RN. M.Sc Michal Libergal 1 *, PhD; David Rott 2, MD Michal Libergal 1 *, PhD; David Rott 2, MD 1 Henrietta Szold Hadassah-Hebrew University.
Coordinator Training Session: March 11, 2012 Major Changes in Data EntryMyers 1 What is the same? What is reduced/removed? What is added/expanded? INTERMACS.

Coordinator Training Session: March 11, 2012 Major Changes in Data EntryMyers 1 What is the same? What is reduced/removed? What is added/expanded? INTERMACS.
Overview of the EQ-5D Purpose and origins of the descriptive system.

Overview of the EQ-5D Purpose and origins of the descriptive system.
1 The valuation of disease-specific questionnaires for QALY analysis  To rescue data in absence of an utility measure  Growth hormone deficiency in adults.

1 The valuation of disease-specific questionnaires for QALY analysis  To rescue data in absence of an utility measure  Growth hormone deficiency in adults.
Predicting Patients at Risk for Poor Global Outcomes after DT- MCS Therapy Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, MHA Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute/UMKC May.

Predicting Patients at Risk for Poor Global Outcomes after DT- MCS Therapy Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, MHA Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute/UMKC May.
Telephone-based coping skills training for patients awaiting lung transplantation The INSPIRE Investigators Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.

Telephone-based coping skills training for patients awaiting lung transplantation The INSPIRE Investigators Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Is healthcare any good for patients? Measuring health outcomes using EQ-5D Professor Paul Kind Principal Investigator Outcomes Research Group Centre for.

Is healthcare any good for patients? Measuring health outcomes using EQ-5D Professor Paul Kind Principal Investigator Outcomes Research Group Centre for.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google