scholarly journals 94. Infectious Complications of Left Ventricular Assist Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S60-S60
Author(s):  
Courtney Harris ◽  
Lara Coakley ◽  
Mandeep R Mehra ◽  
Hari R Mallidi ◽  
Lindsey R Baden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Infectious Complication ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Abstract Background Left ventricular assist devices (VAD) have significantly increased survival for patients with advanced heart failure. While advancements in devices during the past 10 years have improved thrombotic and bleeding complications, infection remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the incidence and risk factors of VAD infections at our institution. Methods A single center, retrospective study of patients who had VAD implanted between January 2007 and December 2020 was performed. Patients with concurrent right sided mechanical circulatory support devices were excluded. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, labs, microbiology data, and antimicrobials were obtained from the electronic medical records. Clinical outcomes were adjudicated by 2 independent physicians. VAD infections were classified using the ISHLT 2011 guidelines. Results 241 patients had durable VAD implanted in this 14-year period, with a median time of 3 years follow-up. 134 (56%) patients had a clinically significant infection; 42 (31.3%) were VAD specific infections, 42 (31.3%) were VAD related, and 50 (37.4%) were non-VAD related. 95% of VAD specific infections were driveline site infections. 98% of patients with VAD related infections had a concurrent blood stream infection. Of the 50 non-VAD infections, 72% involved either a lower respiratory, urinary tract, or Clostridium difficile infection. Median time from VAD implantation to infection was 5 months. 44 (32.8%) had their first infection during the index hospitalization, of which 27 (61.4%) were non-VAD infections. 78 (58.2%) had one infection, compared with 38 (28.4%) who had two or more infections. 17 (12.7%) had recurrence of their initial infection and 6 (35%) occurred despite being on suppressive antibiotics. 48 of 134 (36%) infected patients were transplanted. 57 of 134 (42.5%) died compared to 33 of 107 (31%) without an infection. Conclusion More than half of VAD patients at our center during a 14-year time period had an infectious complication and higher mortality rate compared to those without an infectious complication. Further studies are needed to assess the immunologic risk factors for the increased risk of non-device associated infections in VAD patients. Disclosures Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Abbott (Consultant)Baim Institute for Clinical Research (Consultant)FineHeart (Consultant)NupulseCV (Consultant) Ann E. Woolley, MD, MPH, COVAX (Consultant)

Cerebrovascular Events in Patients with Centrifugal-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis from the Intermacs Registry

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Cho ◽  
J. Hunter Mehaffey ◽  
Susan L. Myers ◽  
Ryan S. Cantor ◽  
Randall C. Starling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Background: Ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accidents (ICVA and HCVA, respectively) remain common among patients with centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs), despite improvements in survival and device longevity. Therefore, the incidence of neurological adverse events (NAEs) associated with two contemporary CF-LVADs, the Abbott HeartMate3 ® (HM3) and the Medtronic HeartWare ™ HVAD ® (HVAD), were compared. Methods: Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs), we collected data on adult patients who received a CF-LVAD as a primary isolated implant between 1/1/2017 and 9/30/2019. Major NAEs were defined as transient ischemic attack (TIA), ICVA, and HCVA. The association of HVAD with risk of NAE in the first year post implant was evaluated using propensity score matching to balance for pre-implant risk factors. After matching, freedom from first major NAE in the HM3 and HVAD cohorts was compared with Kaplan-Meier curves. A secondary analysis using multivariable multiphase hazard models was used to identify predictors of NAE, which uses a data driven parametric fit of the early declining and constant phase hazards and the associations of risk factor with either phase. Results: Of 6,205 included patients, 3,076 (49.6%) received the HM3 and 3,129 (50.4%) received the HVAD. Median follow-up was 9 and 12 months (HM3 and HVAD). HVAD patients had more major NAEs (16.4% vs. 6.4%, p <0.001), as well as each subtype (TIA: 3.3% vs. 1.0%, p <0.001; ICVA: 7.7% vs. 3.4%, p <0.001; and HCVA: 7.2% vs. 2.0%, p <0.001), than did HM3 patients. A propensity-matched cohort balanced for pre-implant risk factors showed that HVAD was associated with higher probabilities of major NAEs (% freedom from NAE: 82% vs. 92%, p <0.001). Device type was not significantly associated with NAEs in the early hazard phase, but HVAD was associated with higher incidence of major NAEs during the constant hazard phase (hazard ratio: 5.71, confidence interval: 3.90-8.36). Conclusions: HM3 is associated with lower hazard of major NAEs than is HVAD beyond the early post-implantation period and during the constant hazard phase. Defining the explanation for this observation will inform device selection for individual patients.

Risk factors for stroke on left ventricular assist devices

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 348-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muath Bishawi ◽  
Jeremy Joseph ◽  
Chetan Patel ◽  
Jacob Schroder ◽  
Mani Daneshmand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Cerebrovascular Events in Patients With Centrifugal-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Propensity Score–Matched Analysis From the Intermacs Registry

Circulation ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 144 (10) ◽  
pp. 763-772
Author(s):  
Sung-Min Cho ◽  
J. Hunter Mehaffey ◽  
Susan L. Meyers ◽  
Ryan S. Cantor ◽  
Randall C. Starling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Cerebrovascular Accident ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Ischemic Attack

Background: Ischemic and hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accidents remain common among patients with centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist devices, despite improvements in survival and device longevity. We compared the incidence of neurologic adverse events (NAEs) associated with 2 contemporary centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist devices: the Abbott HeartMate3 (HM3) and the Medtronic HeartWare HVAD (HVAD). Methods: Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs), we collected data on adult patients who received a centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device as a primary isolated implant between January 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Major NAEs were defined as transient ischemic attack, ischemic cerebrovascular accident, or hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident. The association of HVAD with risk of NAE in the first year after implant was evaluated using propensity score matching to balance for preimplant risk factors. After matching, freedom from first major NAE in the HM3 and HVAD cohorts was compared with Kaplan-Meier curves. A secondary analysis using multivariable multiphase hazard models was used to identify predictors of NAE, which uses a data-driven parametric fit of the early declining and constant phase hazards and the associations of risk factor with either phase. Results: Of 6205 included patients, 3129 (50.4%) received the HM3 and 3076 (49.6%) received the HVAD. Median follow-up was 9 and 12 months (HM3 and HVAD, respectively). Patients receiving HVAD had more major NAEs (16.4% versus 6.4%, P <0.001) as well as each subtype (transient ischemic attack: 3.3% versus 1.0%, P <0.001; ischemic cerebrovascular accident: 7.7% versus 3.4%, P <0.001; hemorrhagic cerebrovascular accident: 7.2% versus 2.0%, P <0.001) than did patients receiving HM3. A propensity-matched cohort balanced for preimplant risk factors showed that HVAD was associated with higher probabilities of major NAEs (% freedom from NAE 82% versus 92%, P <0.001). Device type was not significantly associated with NAEs in the early hazard phase, but HVAD was associated with higher incidence of major NAEs during the constant hazard phase (hazard ratio, 5.71 [CI, 3.90–8.36]). Conclusions: HM3 is associated with lower hazard of major NAEs than is HVAD beyond the early postimplantation period and during the constant hazard phase. Defining the explanation for this observation will inform device selection for individual patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document