Insights into the daily life of ventricular assist device coordinators: Outcome of an international questionnaire

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundAs the incidence of heart failure in developed countries is on the rise, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) often remains the only treatment option for patients with end‐stage heart failure and is well established worldwide. Even though VAD coordinators play a key role in VAD programs, their responsibilities and daily duties are not clearly defined and characterized. Recently published data from the first 5‐year multicenter clinical trial assessing experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular system (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) show an overall survival of 61% at 5 years. When it comes to possible improvements to these systems, it is necessary for developers not only to know the status quo but also to determine and consider the visions and wishes of those individuals who take care of patients, provide education and deal with possible complications. This would be helpful a meaningful effort towards implementing a standard of care.MethodsTo fill this knowledge gap, we conducted an online survey using the SurveyMonkey tool, addressing representatives of programs implanting VADs worldwide. Representatives answered a standardized block of 14 questions and were asked to provide responses within 3 months.ResultsA total of 91 VAD coordinators from centers of various regions of the world completed the survey. The majority came from European countries. The numbers of patients followed up by the centers ranged from <20 to 390 patients. The majority of VAD coordinators had a nursing background (68%). Seventy‐seven percent of the centers operate a 24‐h hotline and 3‐monthly visits to the outpatient department are most common. Fifty‐nine percent of the centers do not use an infection scoring system for driveline wound care. The majority of the centers indicated that an optimized follow‐up concept including wound care, medication, and social care is crucial and the key issue for an improved outcome. Smaller components and intensified psychosocial support ranked highest in questions about how to improve quality of life. Surprisingly, the future prospects of telemetric monitoring were not rated high in significance.ConclusionsThere is a wide variability in the composition and tasks of VAD programs worldwide. Implementing a standard of care and improving psychosocial care as well as equipment is regarded most important to improve outcomes and quality of life. From the point of view of those responsible, the significance of telemetric monitoring seemed overrated.