Dataset Information

End-stage heart failure: Two surgical approaches with different rehabilitative outcomes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A rising number of patients are surgically treated for heart failure at the more advanced stage, thanks to the increasing use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a reliable alternative to heart transplantation (HTx). However, it is still unknown whether differences exist between the two surgical approaches in the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes. Therefore, aim of this study was to evaluate whether functional capacity and rehabilitative outcomes differ between HTx and implantation of LVAD.

Methods and results

We enrolled 51 patients with HTx and 46 with LVAD upon admission to our rehabilitation-unit. We evaluated six-minute walking test (6MWT), resting oxygen saturation (SaO2) and nutritional assessment before and after a standardised cardiovascular rehabilitation programme. HTx and LVAD groups differed in age, anthropometric variables, gender distribution. Upon enrolment, 6MWT distance was similar in the two groups, whereas malnutrition was less frequent and the waist circumference/height ratio (WHtR) was greater in LVAD patients. SaO2 was greater in HTx patients. Rehabilitation improved SaO2, 6MWT distance and nutritional status. The difference in malnutrition disappeared, but WHtR remained higher in the LVAD and SaO2 higher in the HTx patients; the 6MWT distance improved more in the HTx patients. Multivariate linear regression analysis confirmed that the type of intervention was independent predictor of 6MWT distance after rehabilitation.

Conclusions

HTx patients improve more rapidly and perform better after rehabilitation, suggesting the need for more tailored rehabilitation training for LVAD patients.

SUBMITTER: Racca V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5626463 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

End-stage heart failure: Two surgical approaches with different rehabilitative outcomes.

Racca Vittorio V Castiglioni Paolo P Panzarino Claudia C Oliva Fabrizio F Perna Enrico E Ferratini Maurizio M

PloS one 20171003 10

<h4>Background</h4>A rising number of patients are surgically treated for heart failure at the more advanced stage, thanks to the increasing use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a reliable alternative to heart transplantation (HTx). However, it is still unknown whether differences exist between the two surgical approaches in the efficacy of rehabilitation programmes. Therefore, aim of this study was to evaluate whether functional capacity and rehabilitative outcomes differ between HTx ...[more]

PMID: 28972991

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsDespite signals from clinical trials and mechanistic studies implying different resilience to heart failure (HF) depending on gender, the impact of gender on presentation and outcomes in patients with HF remains unclear. This study assessed the impact of gender on clinical presentation and outcomes in patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service.Methods and resultsConsecutive patients with HF referred to a specialised tertiary HF service offering advanced therapy options including left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and heart transplantation were prospectively enrolled from August 2015 until March 2018. We assessed clinical characteristics at baseline and performed survival analyses and age-adjusted Cox regression analyses in men vs. women for all-cause death and a combined disease-related endpoint comprising death, heart transplantation, and LVAD implantation. Analyses were performed for the overall study population and for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Of 356 patients included, 283 (79.5%) were male. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range 50-67). Two hundred and fifty-one (74.5%) patients had HFrEF. HF aetiology, ejection fraction, functional status measures, and most of the cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities did not differ between men and women. In a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 50 patients died (45 men, 5 women), 15 patients underwent LVAD implantation, and 8 patients heart transplantation. While all-cause death was not significantly different between both genders in the overall population [16.9 vs. 6.0%, P = 0.065, hazard ratio (HR) 2.29 (95% confidence interval 0.91-5.78), P = 0.078], in the HFrEF subgroup, a significant difference between men and women was observed [20.7% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.017, HR 3.67 (95% confidence interval 1.13-11.91), P = 0.031]. The combined endpoint was more often reached in men than in women in both the overall population [21.6% vs. 9.0%, P = 0.053, HR 2.51 (1.08-5.82), P = 0.032] and the HFrEF subgroup [27.1% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.015, HR 3.58 (1.29-9.94), P = 0.014].ConclusionsPatients referred to a specialised tertiary HF service showed a similar clinical profile without relevant gender differences. In the mid-term follow-up, more male than female patients died or underwent heart transplantation and LVAD implantation. These findings call for independent validation and for further research into gender-specific drivers of HF progression.

Project description:CONTEXT:The current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis. OBJECTIVE:The specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient's adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene. METHODS:The study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores. RESULTS:No substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients' experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients' satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months. CONCLUSIONS:The results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients' experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

Dataset Information

End-stage heart failure: Two surgical approaches with different rehabilitative outcomes.

Background

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

End-stage heart failure: Two surgical approaches with different rehabilitative outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets