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.

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.

scholarly journals Endocrine Challenges in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 861
Author(s):  
Gennaro Martucci ◽  
Federico Pappalardo ◽  
Harikesh Subramanian ◽  
Giulia Ingoglia ◽  
Elena Conoscenti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Flow ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Endocrine Function ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Endocrine Dysfunction ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist

Heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of morbidity, hospitalization, and mortality worldwide. Advancement of mechanical circulatory support technology has led to the use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), reducing hospitalizations, and improving quality of life and outcomes in advanced HF. Recent studies have highlighted how metabolic and endocrine dysfunction may be a consequence of, or associated with, HF, and may represent a novel (still neglected) therapeutic target in the treatment of HF. On the other hand, it is not clear whether LVAD support, may impact the outcome by also improving organ perfusion as well as improving the neuro-hormonal state of the patients, reducing the endocrine dysfunction. Moreover, endocrine function is likely a major determinant of human homeostasis, and is a key issue in the recovery from critical illness. Care of the endocrine function may contribute to improving cardiac contractility, immune function, as well as infection control, and rehabilitation during and after a LVAD placement. In this review, data on endocrine challenges in patients carrying an LVAD are gathered to highlight pathophysiological states relevant to this setting of patients, and to summarize the current therapeutic suggestions in the treatment of thyroid dysfunction, and vitamin D, erythropoietin and testosterone administration.

Development of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: 55 Years and Counting

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Support Devices

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Treatment of this condition increasingly involves mechanical circulatory support devices. Even with optimal medical therapy and use of simple cardiac devices, heart failure often leads to reduced quality of life and a shortened life span, prompting exploration of more advanced treatment approaches. Left ventricular assist devices constitute an effective alternative to cardiac transplantation. These devices are not without complications, however, and their use requires careful cooperative management by the patient’s cardiology team and primary care provider. Left ventricular assist devices have undergone many technological advancements since they were first introduced, and they will continue to evolve. This article reviews the history of different types of left ventricular assist devices, appropriate patient selection, and common complications in order to increase health professionals’ familiarity with these treatment options.

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

Outpatient use of left ventricular assist devices: nursing, technical, and educational considerations

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 355-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
DA Moroney ◽  
K Powers
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Training ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Hospital Data ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Permanent Implants

Improvements in technology and in the selection, care, and treatment of patients have led to wider clinical use of mechanical circulatory support. Considerable progress has been made with the use of left ventricular assist devices. Patients are currently maintained in outpatient facilities until a donor heart becomes available; recently, left ventricular assist devices have started to be used as permanent implants. This article outlines the steps that are taken to prepare the patient, the patient's family, and the medical staff for discharge from the hospital of a patient supported with a left ventricular assist device. Extensive technical and clinical training of the primary caregiver and the patient is required to prepare for discharge from the hospital. Data are rapidly accumulating that show that left ventricular assist devices are safe and efficacious for outpatient use. Similar success is expected in clinical trials of permanent left ventricular assist devices, suggesting that many more patients will benefit from this technology in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document