Coagulopathy is a potential problem for many critically ill patients, placing them at risk for hemorrhage. Critical illness activates both hemostasis and the inflammatory-immune system, leading to ...both physiological and potentially pathophysiological responses. Following complex surgery or trauma, patients are at high risk for development of problems such as thrombocytopenia and postoperative bleeding, challenging nurses to recognize and manage these problems. The clinical manifestations of coagulopathy may be obvious or occult, and correlation with the coagulation panel results is a complex process. Transfusion of blood and components has long been an important part of patient management, but is known to put patients at risk for transfusion-related complications. Current clinical practice guidelines provide blood conservation strategies and criteria to guide decisions on transfusion therapy.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VSZLJ
Quality of life (QOL) outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from before to after hospital discharge have been examined only in a very small sample of patients. The ...purposes of this study are to describe change in QOL from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients and to determine whether being discharged with an LVAD predicts better QOL than being hospitalized with an LVAD.
A non-random sample of 62 LVAD patients (approximately 50 years old, male, white, married, fairly well-educated) completed self-report questionnaires at ≥2 timepoints post-implant. The questionnaires (Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale, Jalowiec Coping Scale), which were collated into booklets, had acceptable reliability and validity. Longitudinal analyses were performed in 2 steps using 1-sample
t-tests and linear mixed effects modeling.
Perception of QOL and health status were fairly good both before and after discharge of LVAD patients. Discharge predicted increased satisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life; decreased overall and psychologic stress and stress related to family and friends, self-care and work/school/finances; and decreased physical and self-care disability.
QOL outcomes improved from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients awaiting heart transplantation. As LVADs potentially become available as destination therapy, in addition to being successful bridges to heart transplantation, QOL outcomes will become more important to study.
To describe quality-of-life outcomes; determine relationships between quality of life and demographic, physical, psychosocial, and clinical variables; and identify predictors of quality of life at 1 ...month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device.
Patients who received either an implantable pneumatic (n = 38) or a vented electric (n = 54) left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation between August 1, 1994, and August 31, 1999, completed 6 instruments used to measure quality of life andfactors related to quality of life. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests, and forward, stepwise multiple regression.
Overall satisfaction with quality of life was quite high as determined from the total score on the Quality of Life Index (mean = 0.69). Patients were very satisfied with the implantation and thought that they would do well after future heart transplant surgery. Patients had a moderate level of stress. Significant predictors of overall quality of life were psychological symptoms, stress, and race; these accounted for 46% of variance in quality of life.
Patients were satisfied with their quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. However, they were least satisfied with their health and functioning and yet were optimistic about how well they thought they would do after heart transplantation. Psychological factors were the strongest predictors of satisfaction with overall quality of life.
Background: Despite advances in heart transplantation and mechanical circulatory support, mortality among transplant candidates remains high. Better ways are needed to ensure the survival of ...transplant candidates both inside and outside the hospital. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter clinical trial conducted at 24 centers in the United States, 280 transplant candidates (232 men, 48 women; median age, 55 years; range, 11-72 years) unresponsive to inotropic drugs, intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, or both, were treated with the HeartMate Vented Electric Left Ventricular Assist System (VE LVAS). A cohort of 48 patients (40 men, 8 women; median age, 50 years; range, 21-67 years) not supported with an LVAS served as a historical control group. Outcomes were measured in terms of laboratory data (hemodynamic, hematologic, and biochemical), adverse events, New York Heart Association functional class, and survival. Results: The VE LVAS–treated and non–VE LVAS–treated (control) groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and distribution of patients by diagnosis (ischemic cardiomyopathy, idiopathic cardiomyopathy, and subacute myocardial infarction). VE LVAS support lasted an average of 112 days (range, < 1-691 days), with 54 patients supported for > 180 days. Mean VE LVAS flow (expressed as pump index) throughout support was 2.8 L · min–1 · m–2. Median total bilirubin values decreased from 1.2 mg/dL at baseline to 0.7 mg/dL (P =.0001); median creatinine values decreased from 1.5 mg/dL at baseline to 1.1 mg/dL (P =.0001). VE LVAS–related adverse events included bleeding in 31 patients (11%), infection in 113 (40%), neurologic dysfunction in 14 (5%), and thromboembolic events in 17 (6%). A total of 160 (58%) patients were enrolled in a hospital release program. Twenty-nine percent of the VE LVAS-treated patients (82/280) died before receiving a transplant, compared with 67% of controls (32/48) (P <.001). Conversely, 71% of the VE LVAS–treated patients (198/280) survived: 67% (188/280) ultimately received a heart transplant, and 4% (10/280) had the device removed electively. One-year post-transplant survival of VE LVAS–treated patients was significantly better than that of controls (84% 158/188 vs 63% 10/16; log rank analysis P =.0197). Conclusion: The HeartMate VE LVAS provides adequate hemodynamic support, has an acceptably low incidence of adverse effects, and improves survival in heart transplant candidates both inside and outside the hospital. The studies of the HeartMate LVAS (both pneumatic and electric) for Food and Drug Administration approval are the only studies with a valid control group to show a survival benefit for cardiac transplantation.
The HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device has been approved for use as destination therapy. Thus, the study of quality-of-life outcomes, as well as morbidity and mortality, is ...imperative. The purpose of our study was to describe change with time (from 1 month to 1 year) in patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation and to identify quality-of-life predictors of survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.
A nonrandom sample of 78 patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device (primarily middle-aged, white married males) who had quality-of-life data at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 months after implant was the subject of this report. The sample size decreased with time primarily because of heart transplantation. Patients completed the following booklets of questionnaires: Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, and Sickness Impact Profile. Analyses included both descriptive analyses and modeling procedures (mixed-effects models and Cox proportional hazards models).
Quality-of-life outcomes were fairly good and stable from 1 month to 1 year after HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device implantation. Both positive and negative changes were detected in all quality-of-life domains (physical and occupational function, social interaction, somatic sensation, and psychological state) after left ventricular assist device insertion. Items from the physical domain of quality of life, specifically walking and dressing oneself, were significantly associated with the risk of dying after left ventricular assist device implantation.
Identifying poor quality-of-life outcomes within 1 year after left ventricular assist device implantation provides direction to develop strategies to improve outcomes. Physical and occupational rehabilitation, psychosocial intervention, and monitoring symptom distress and physical disability may contribute to improved quality-of-life outcomes and survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.
Since 1986, the HeartMate left ventricular assist system (LVAS) has been widely used as a bridge to transplantation. Recently, a multicenter study was undertaken to evaluate the safety of allowing ...patients supported by the vented electric (VE) LVAS to await transplantation at home. Eligible patients progressed from 1 day to 3 day passes, then were discharged from the hospital. Twenty-nine patients at four centers were evaluated for incidence of adverse events and change in quality of life. Mean time of support was 193.7 ± 138 days (range, 35–504 days). Patients spent a total of 2,922 days at home344 1 day passes and 150 3 day passes were issued; 21 patients were discharged from the hospital. There were 15 readmissions to the hospital9 for medical reasons and 6 for device related problems. Patients were able to resolve numerous technical problems at home. No deaths occurred outside of the hospital. Two patients returned to full-time employment, and all patients resumed an active lifestyle. Although adverse events occurred, the results of this study appear to demonstrate that patients may safely await transplantation at home while supported by a HeartMate VE-LVAS.
Caring for Patients with Femoral Sheaths Dressler, Diane K.; Dressler, Kristin K.
The American journal of nursing,
05/2006, Letnik:
106, Številka:
5
Journal Article
The successful use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation has prompted our examination of quality of life (QOL) outcomes. The purposes of this study are to ...describe QOL in patients 1 to 2 weeks after LVAD implantation and to compare QOL in a smaller cohort of patients from before to 1 to 2 weeks after surgery.
Data were collected from a convenience sample of 81 patients who completed booklets of questionnaires that measure domains of QOL 1 to 2 weeks after LVAD insertion and from 30 of 81 patients who completed booklets at both the pre-implantation and post-implantation periods. Patients completed booklets of 6 to 8 self-reporting instruments, with acceptable reliability and validity. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics (chi-square, Mann-Whitney
U and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests) with
p = 0.01 considered statistically significant.
One to 2 weeks after LVAD implantation, patients were quite satisfied with their lives, experienced moderately low amounts of stress, coped well, and perceived themselves as having good health and QOL, low symptom distress, and moderately low functional disability. Patients reported significantly better QOL, more satisfaction with health and functioning, and were significantly less distressed by symptoms from immediately pre-operatively to post-operatively. However, patients reported significantly more self-care disability and more dissatisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life from before to immediately after surgery. Psychological distress was low and did not change with time.
Given that QOL improved from before to after LVAD implantation, our findings provide a springboard for investigation of the impact of LVADs on long-term QOL outcomes.
No studies have analyzed quality of life (QOL) from before to after heart transplantation in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal, ...multi-site study was to compare QOL outcomes of patients listed for heart transplantation who required a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at 3 months after implantation of an LVAD vs 3 months after heart transplantation.
A non-random sample of 40 patients (predominantly middle-aged, married, white men), who had paired data at both 3 months after LVAD implantation and 3 months after heart transplantation, were investigated. Patients completed self-report questionnaires (with acceptable reliability and validity) at both time periods, including the Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale (completed only after LVAD implant), Heart Transplant Stressor Scale (completed only after heart transplant) and Jalowiec Coping Scale. Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses using paired
t-tests were performed with statistical significance set at 0.01.
Patients were significantly more satisfied with their lives overall and with their health and functioning at 3 months after heart transplantation as compared with 3 months after LVAD implantation. Mobility, self-care ability, physical ability and overall functional ability improved from 3 months after LVAD implant to 3 months after heart transplant. There was significantly less symptom distress after LVAD implant as compared with after heart transplant for the neurologic, dermatologic and physical sub-scales. Work/school/financial stress was significantly lower after heart transplant vs after LVAD implant. In contrast, 2 other areas of stress were significantly lower after LVAD implant vs after heart transplant: self-care stress and hospital/clinic-related stress.
Differences were found in QOL outcomes at 3 months after LVAD implant as compared with 3 months after heart transplant. Our findings point out specific areas of concern with respect to QOL after LVAD implant and post-transplant, some of which are amenable to health-care provider interventions.
PDF
