Predictors of renal replacement therapy in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices

Predictors and Impact of Prolonged Vasoplegia After Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Background

Vasoplegia after cardiac surgery is associated with adverse outcomes. However, the clinical effects of vasoplegia and the significance of its duration after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation are less known.

Objectives

This study aimed to identify predictors of and outcomes from transient vs prolonged vasoplegia after CF-LVAD implantation.

Methods

The study was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2017. Vasoplegia was defined as the presence of all of the following: mean arterial pressure ≤65 mm Hg, vasopressor (epinephrine, norepinephrine, vasopressin, or dopamine) use for >6 hours within the first 24 hours postoperatively, cardiac index ≥2.2 L/min/m2 and systemic vascular resistance <800 dyne/s/cm5, and vasodilatory shock not attributable to other causes. Prolonged vasoplegia was defined as that lasting 12 to 24 hours; transient vasoplegia was that lasting 6 to <12 hours. Patient characteristics, outcomes, and risk factors were analyzed.

Results

Of the 600 patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation during the study period, 182 (30.3%) developed vasoplegia. Mean patient age was similar between the vasoplegia and no-vasoplegia groups. Prolonged vasoplegia (n = 78; 13.0%), compared with transient vasoplegia (n = 104; 17.3%), was associated with greater 30-day mortality (16.7% vs 5.8%; P = 0.02). Risk factors for prolonged vasoplegia included preoperative dialysis and elevated body mass index.

Conclusions

Compared with vasoplegia overall, prolonged vasoplegia was associated with worse survival after CF-LVAD implantation. Treatment to avoid or minimize progression to prolonged vasoplegia may be warranted.

PERSUADE Survey-PERioperative AnestheSia and Intensive Care Management of Left VentricUlar Assist DevicE Implantation in Europe and the United States

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively assess relevant institutional variations in anesthesia and intensive care management during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

DESIGN

The authors used a prospective data analysis.

SETTING

This was an online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were from LVAD centers in Europe and the US.

INTERVENTIONS

After investigating initial interest, 91 of 202 European and 93 of 195 US centers received a link to the survey targeting institutional organization and experience, perioperative hemodynamic monitoring, medical management, and postoperative intensive care aspects.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey was completed by 73 (36.1%) European and 60 (30.8%) US centers. Although most LVAD implantations were performed in university hospitals (>5 years of experience), significant differences were observed in the composition of the preoperative multidisciplinary team and provision of intraoperative care. No significant differences in monitoring or induction agents were observed. Propofol was used more often for maintenance in Europe (p < 0.001). The choice for inotropes changed significantly from preoperatively (more levosimendan in Europe) to intraoperatively (more use of epinephrine in both Europe and the US). The use of quantitative methods for defining right ventricular (RV) function was reported more often from European centers than from US centers (p < 0.05). Temporary mechanical circulatory support for the treatment of RV failure was more often used in Europe. Nitric oxide appeared to play a major role only intraoperatively. There were no significant differences in early postoperative complications reported from European versus US centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the perioperative practice of care for patients undergoing LVAD implantation differs in several aspects between Europe and the US, there were no perceived differences in early postoperative complications.

Clinical Predictors and Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Tracheostomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative respiratory failure is a major complication that affects up to 10% of patients who undergo cardiac surgery and has a high in-hospital mortality rate. Few studies have investigated whether patients who require tracheostomy for postoperative respiratory failure after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation have worse survival outcomes than patients who do not.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for respiratory failure necessitating tracheostomy in CF-LVAD recipients and to compare survival outcomes between those who did and did not require tracheostomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent primary CF-LVAD placement at a single institution between August 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching accounted for baseline differences between the tracheostomy and nontracheostomy groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify tracheostomy risk factors and 90-day survival; Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess midterm survival.

RESULTS

During the study period, 664 patients received a CF-LVAD; 106 (16.0%) underwent tracheostomy for respiratory failure. Propensity score matching produced 103 matched tracheostomy-nontracheostomy pairs. Patients who underwent tracheostomy were older (mean [SD] age, 57.9 [12.3] vs 54.6 [13.9] years; P = .02) and more likely to need preoperative mechanical circulatory support (61.3% vs 47.8%; P = .01) and preoperative intubation (27.4% vs 8.8%; P < .001); serum creatinine was higher in the tracheostomy group (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.0] vs 1.4 [0.6] mg/dL; P < .001), correlating with tracheostomy need (odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.21-2.56; P = .003). Both before and after propensity matching, 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 1-year survival were worse in patients who underwent tracheostomy. Median follow-up was 0.8 years (range, 0.0-11.2 years). Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly worse for the tracheostomy group before (22.0% vs 61.0%; P < .001) and after (22.4% vs 48.3%; P < .001) matching.

CONCLUSION

Given the substantially increased probability of death in patients who develop respiratory failure and need tracheostomy, those at high risk for respiratory failure should be carefully considered for CF-LVAD implantation. Comprehensive management to decrease respiratory failure before and after surgery is critical.

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Staphylococcus-induced proliferative glomerulonephritis and cerebral hemorrhage - fatal complications in a young female with postpartum cardiomyopathy and an implanted left ventricular assist device: a case report and review of the literature

Background: The continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) is used to save the lives of patients in the final stage of congestive heart failure, replacing the pump function of the left ventricle. Although quality of life increases significantly, CF-LVAD-related complications might prove fatal, as in the case presented in this paper.Methods: A 20-year-old female, during her second pregnancy, presented with signs of heart failure. Emergency caesarean section was necessary to save the baby, but peripartum cardiomyopathy developed in the mother. The use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was necessary 5 years later. As the clinical progression was unfavorable under medical treatment, with the patient reaching INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) Profile 1 (refractory cardiogenic shock), the treatment of choice was the implantation of a CF-LVAD.Results: After 3 years of follow-up (at the age of 28), the patient presented with a positive hemoculture for Staphylococcus aureus. Prolonged antibiotic therapy and attentive follow-up was prescribed. Although an effective antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment was applied, and despite therapeutic values of prothrombin time and international normalized ratio (INR), the patient died as result of a fatal cerebral hemorrhage. The autopsy also revealed septic emboli, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and focal proliferative glomerulonephritis.Conclusions: Although the benefits of CF-LVAD are significant, bleeding episodes can be severe and LVAD-associated infection can trigger glomerular injury and increase mortality.

Preoperative hyponatremia and survival after left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Hyponatremia is associated with adverse outcomes in heart failure and after cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that hyponatremia is associated with poorer short-term and longer-term survival in patients after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) placement.

METHODS

We reviewed a single-center database of patients who received a CF-LVAD during 2012-2017. Sodium (Na) values obtained within 14 days before CF-LVAD insertion were averaged; patients (n=332) were divided into hyponatremia (mean Na <135 mEq/L; n=160; 48.2%) and normonatremia groups (mean Na 135-145 mEq/L; n=172; 51.8%). Patients requiring preoperative dialysis or pump exchanged were excluded. We compared outcomes between preoperative hyponatremia and normonatremia groups.

RESULTS

The two groups' baseline characteristics were similar, although hyponatremia patients more often had preoperative mechanical circulatory support (44.4% vs 31.4%, p=0.002). Although hyponatremic and normonatremic patients did not differ in 30-day mortality (7.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.7), preoperative hyponatremia was associated with greater 5-year mortality (61% vs 44%, p=0.03). On binary logistic regression analysis, the strongest independent predictors of late mortality were hyponatremia (odds ratio [OR] 1.88, 95% CI [1.07-3.31], p=0.02), older age (OR 1.03, 95% CI [1.01-1.05], p=0.01), and elevated mean right atrial pressure/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio (OR 4.69, 95% CI [1.76-12.47], p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Hyponatremia was not associated with greater early mortality but was associated with poorer late survival. Optimal timing of LVAD implantation in relation to hyponatremia, and whether correcting hyponatremia perioperatively improves long-term survival, should be investigated.