Abstract WP230: Stroke Characteristics and Outcomes in Patients With Current Generation Centrifugal Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ovais Inamullah ◽  
Yuting Chiang ◽  
Martin Weiss ◽  
Michael Lutz ◽  
Carmelo Milano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
The Difference ◽  
New Generation

Introduction: Stroke is a devastating complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy and a leading cause of mortality in this group. The newer HeartMate (HVAD, 2012) and HeartMate 3 (HM3, 2017) devices use a continuous flow centrifugal pump with a magnetically levitated rotor that may cause less thrombosis and stroke. We aim to compare the rate and severity of strokes in the setting of the new generation LVADs. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study at a single US academic medical center. The cohort includes all subjects at Duke University Medical Center who received either an HM3 or HVAD LVAD between September 2009 through February 2018 and had a cerebrovascular accident while the LVAD was in place. Descriptive statistics were calculated to compare the clinical variables for individuals receiving either the HVAD or HM3 device. 95% confidence intervals were calculated when appropriate. Results: A total of 163 HVAD patients and 84 HM3 patients were included in the analysis. Strokes occurred more commonly among those with HVAD (14.7%, 9.7%-21.1%) compared to those with HM3 (6.0%, 2.0%-13.3%). About 62.1% of strokes were ischemic. Patients with HM3 were older and had a higher rate of cardiovascular risk factors. The initial mean NIHSS was higher in HM3 patients (24.6, 11.9-37.3) compared to those with HVADs (16, 10.9-21.1). Mortality within 30 days was higher in HM3 patients (60.0%, 14.7%-94.7%) compared to HVAD patients (45.8%, 25.6%-67.2%). Patients were more likely to be disabled (mRs> 3) at 3 months if they had an HM3 (80%, 28.4%-99.5%) compared to those who had an HVAD (54.2%, 32.8%-74.4%). Conclusion: Strokes occurred more commonly among those with HVAD compared to HM3, but the strokes in those with HM3 tended to be more severe at onset compared to HVAD with a higher 30 days mortality and more disability at 3 months. The difference in stroke frequency may suggest that the HM3 is less prone to thrombosis. The difference in mortality may have been secondary to patients with HM3 being older and with more cardiovascular risk factors or could be related to a reduction in minor strokes causing a shift to worse outcomes. Additional studies are needed to understand the predictors of stroke in the setting of the new generation LVADs.

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

Non-pulsatile circulation with axial-flow left ventricular assist device preserves neurocognitive function

Perfusion ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Argiriadou ◽  
Kalliopi Megari ◽  
Polychronis Antonitsis ◽  
Mary H. Kosmidis ◽  
Christos Papakonstantinou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Axial Flow ◽  
Circulation Pattern ◽  
Neurocognitive Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
New Generation

Concerns about the potential impact of the non-pulsatile circulation pattern generated by the new generation axial-flow left ventricular assist devices on neurocognitive function led us to evaluate a patient in whom a Jarvik 2000 pump was implanted. We assessed the patient’s baseline neurocognitive function preoperatively as well as at 1-month and 6-month follow-up, using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. A slight improvement in circumscribed neurocognitive domains was noted, with no evidence of further decline at the end of a 6-month follow-up period.

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