Linda Cadaret

Biventricular Assist Device Utilization for Patients with Morbid Congestive Heart Failure A Justifiable Strategy

Background—The rationale for the use of a biventricular assist device (BiVAD) for morbid congestive heart failure (MCHF) has been questioned because of historically unacceptable rates of postimplant and post-transplant mortality as well as perceived barriers to their outpatient management. Methods and Results—All patients who received a Thoratec BiVAD from January 1990 to December 2003 at the University of Pittsburgh were studied retrospectively. There were a total of 73 patients (32% ischemic, 21% idiopathic, and 47% other) who had a BiVAD implanted. Before implantation, 100% were on ≥1 inotropic agent, and 77% had an intra-aortic balloon pump. Overall survival was 69%; 42 patients (84%) received cardiac transplantation, 5 patients (10%) were weaned, and 3 (6%) remained supported on BiVAD. If the 14 patients with postcardiotomy failure and acute myocardial infarction with shock are excluded, the overall survival improves to 75%. Five-year actuarial survival after heart transplantation was 58%. Of the 29 patients implanted before 2000, the 4-month actuarial freedom from driveline infections, bloodstream infections, and neurological events was 10%, 54%, and 48%, respectively, whereas the rates of these events for the 44 patients implanted after 2000 improved to 70%, 79%, and 80%, respectively. Since 2000, 21 (48%) patients were discharged from the hospital, of whom 38% went to an outpatient residence, 33% to a skilled nursing facility, and 29% to home. Once discharged, ≥1 readmission occurred in 45% and ≥2 readmissions in 48%. Conclusions—BiVAD support for MCHF has an acceptable overall mortality and survival to transplantation. Morbidity has been significantly reduced in the past 4 years, and management as an outpatient is achievable.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients

Increasing use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been accompanied by rising incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Objectives of this study were to determine the yearly incidence of GIB in LVAD recipients, compare outcomes of continuous-flow (CF) and pulsatile-flow LVAD eras, and investigate for risk factors. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2005 to 2010 was analyzed. Primary outcome of interest was incidence of GIB in LVAD recipients. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to examine independent associations of GIB with risk factors and outcomes. An estimated 8,879 LVAD index admissions and 8,722 readmissions in LVAD recipients over 6 years were analyzed. The yearly incidence of GIB after LVAD implantation increased from 5% in 2005 to 10% in 2010. On multivariate regression analysis, the odds of GIB was 3.24 times greater (95% confidence interval 1.53 to 6.89) in the era of CF LVADs than in the era of pulsatile-flow LVADs. Compared to their younger counterparts, in LVAD recipients aged >65 years, the adjusted odds of GIB was 20.5 times greater (95% confidence interval 2.24 to 188). GIB did not significantly increase the inhospital mortality but increased the inpatient length of stay. In conclusion, the incidence of GIB in LVAD recipients has increased since the use of CF LVADs has increased, leading to greater inpatient lengths of stay and hospital charges. Older recipients of CF LVADs appear to be at a greater risk of GIB.

High early event rates in patients with questionable eligibility for advanced heart failure therapies: Results from the Medical Arm of Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Medamacs) Registry

BACKGROUND The prognosis of ambulatory patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who are not yet inotrope dependent and implications for evaluation and timing for transplant or destination therapy with a left ventricular assist device (DT-LVAD) are unknown. We hypothesized that the characteristics defining eligibility for advanced HF therapies would be a primary determinant of outcomes in these patients. METHODS Ambulatory patients with advanced HF (New York Heart Association class III-IV, Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles 4-7) were enrolled across 11 centers from May 2013 to February 2015. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: likely transplant eligible, DT-LVAD eligible, and ineligible for both transplant and DT-LVAD. Clinical characteristics were collected, and patients were prospectively followed for death, transplant, and left ventricular assist device implantation. RESULTS The study enrolled 144 patients with a mean follow-up of 10 ± 6 months. Patients in the ineligible cohort (n = 43) had worse congestion, renal function, and anemia compared with transplant (n = 51) and DT-LVAD (n = 50) eligible patients. Ineligible patients had higher mortality (23.3% vs 8.0% in DT-LVAD group and 5.9% in transplant group, p = 0.02). The differences in mortality were related to lower rates of transplantation (11.8% in transplant group vs 2.0% in DT-LVAD group and 0% in ineligible group, p = 0.02) and left ventricular assist device implantation (15.7% in transplant group vs 2.0% in DT-LVAD group and 0% in ineligible group, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Ambulatory patients with advanced HF who were deemed ineligible for transplant and DT-LVAD had markers of greater HF severity and a higher rate of mortality compared with patients eligible for transplant or DT-LVAD. The high early event rate in this group emphasizes the need for timely evaluation and decision making regarding lifesaving therapies.