Abstract 5853: Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device in Women with Advanced Heart Failure: Results After One Year of Support

Circulation ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 118 (suppl_18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Salpy V Pamboukian ◽  
Roberta C Bogaev ◽  
Stuart D Russell ◽  
Andrew J Boyle ◽  
Nader Moazami ◽  
...  

Small continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are providing new options for women in advanced heart failure who due to body size limitations were historically excluded from use of large first generation pulsatile devices. We report the experience of women one year after implantation with the new, HeartMate II continuous flow LVAD for bridge to transplantation. Patients (n=279), 24% female (F), 76% male (M) in NYHA Class IV heart failure, LV ejection fraction 16±7% (F), 16±6% (M), mostly inotrope dependent and about half on intraaortic balloon pump support (50% F, 43% M), who had been enrolled in the HM II clinical trial for at least 1 year as a bridge to cardiac transplantation at 33 centers were analyzed. Outcomes and causes of death in the first year of support between F and M recipients were determined. The percentage of patients who had undergone transplantation, recovery of the heart with device removal, or continued on HM II support after one year were the same (80%) between M and F. However, the percentage of patients who had received a heart transplant was significantly less for F (38%) than M (53%) (p<0.05). Median duration of support for F was 226 days (range 8–1004) vs. 143 days (range 0–1057) for M. Mortality on device support was 20% for F and 18% M. There were no statistically significant differences in leading causes of death: sepsis (1.5% F vs 4.2% M), ischemic stroke (3.1% F vs 1.9% M), hemorrhagic stroke (3.1% F vs 1.4% M), and right heart failure (3.1% F vs 1.9% M). Of 82 patients continuing on support at 1 year, 26 (32%) were F with median BSA of 1.65 vs 2.14 m 2 for M. Kaplan Meier survival at one year was similar for females (74%) and males (76%). The smaller, more durable HM II rotary LVAD may be especially advantageous to women with advanced HF as a bridge to cardiac transplantation, because of significantly smaller BSA and need for extended duration of mechanical support due to longer wait times for suitable organ donors. Outcomes at one-year

Author(s):  
Timothy J Fendler ◽  
Michael E Nassif ◽  
Kevin F Kennedy ◽  
John A Spertus ◽  
Shane J LaRue ◽  
...  

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy can improve survival and quality of life in advanced heart failure (HF), but some patients may still do poorly after LVAD. Understanding the likelihood of experiencing poorer outcomes after LVAD can better inform patients and calibrate their expectations. Methods: We analyzed patients receiving LVAD therapy from January 2012 to October 2013 at a single, high-volume, high-acuity center. We defined a poor global outcome at 1 year after LVAD as the occurrence of death, disabling stroke (precluding transplant), poor patient-reported health status (most recent KCCQ at 3, 6, or 12 months < 45, corresponding to NYHA class IV), or recurrent HF (≥2 HF readmissions post-implant). We compared characteristics of those with and without poor global outcome. Results: Among 164 LVAD recipients who had 1-year outcomes data, mean age was 56, 76.7% were white, 20.9% were female, and 85.9% were INTERMACS Profile 1 or 2 (cardiogenic shock or declining despite inotropes). Poor global outcome occurred in 58 (35.4%) patients at 1 year, of whom 37 (63.8%) died, 17 (29.3%) had a most recent KCCQ score < 45, 3 (5.2%) had ≥2 HF readmissions, and 1 (1.7%) had a disabling stroke (Figure). Eight of the patients who died also experienced one of the three other poor outcomes prior to death. Patients who experienced a poor global outcome were more likely to be designated for destination therapy (46.4% vs. 23.6%, p=0.01) than bridge to transplant, have longer index admissions (median [IQR]: 39 [24, 57] days vs. 25 [18, 35] days, p=0.003), and have major GI bleeding (44.2% vs. 27.7%, p=0.056), and were less likely to undergo LVAD exchange (0% vs. 12.3%, p=0.004). Conclusion: In this large, single-center study assessing global outcome after LVAD implantation, we found that about a third of all patients had experienced a poor global outcome at 1 year. While LVAD therapy remains life-saving and the standard of care for many patients with advanced heart failure, these findings could help guide discussions with eligible patients and families. Future work should compare patients’ pre-LVAD expectations with likely outcomes and create risk models to estimate the probability of poorer outcomes for individual patients using pre-procedural factors.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document