Emergency department visits among patients with left ventricular assist devices

A multidisciplinary approach for the emergency care of patients with left ventricular assist devices: A practical guide

The use of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge-to-transplantation or destination therapy to support cardiac function in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) is increasing in all developed countries. However, the expertise needed to implant and manage patients referred for LVAD treatment is limited to a few reference centers, which are often located far from the patient's home. Although patients undergoing LVAD implantation should be permanently referred to the LVAD center for the management and follow-up of the device also after implantation, they would refer to the local healthcare service for routine assistance and urgent health issues related to the device or generic devices. Therefore, every clinician, from a bigger to a smaller center, should be prepared to manage LVAD carriers and the possible risks associated with LVAD management. Particularly, emergency treatment of patients with LVAD differs slightly from conventional emergency protocols and requires specific knowledge and a multidisciplinary approach to avoid ineffective treatment or dangerous consequences. This review aims to provide a standard protocol for managing emergency and urgency in patients with LVAD, elucidating the role of each healthcare professional and emphasizing the importance of collaboration between the emergency department, in-hospital ward, and LVAD reference center, as well as algorithms designed to ensure timely, adequate, and effective treatment to patients with LVAD.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices at the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can be used as a bridging therapy for myocardial recovery or cardiac transplant, as well as a destination therapy for long-term support in patients with advanced heart failure. Patients with LVADs can present to the emergency department (ED) for acute deterioration and emergency physicians (EPs) must be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skill to treat this unique population.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes the role of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the evaluation of patients with LVADs and illustrates how EPs can incorporate POCUS into the evaluation of these patients in the ED.

DISCUSSION

The clinical applications for which POCUS may be useful in patients with LVADs include hypotension or shock, dyspnea, cardiac failure, dysrhythmia, syncope, and cardiac arrest. The normal features of POCUS in patients with LVADs and the features of POCUS associated with diseased states are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LVADs have altered anatomy and physiology. Therefore, an understanding of key modifications to standard POCUS views is necessary so that EPs can use POCUS effectively in their evaluation of these patients.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Pediatric Patients With a Ventricular Assist Device Presenting to the Emergency Department

OBJECTIVES

A growing number of children receive support from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) in the outpatient setting. Unexpected complications of LVAD support occur that require emergent management, and no studies examine how pediatric LVAD patients present to the emergency department (ED). The goals of this study were (1) to describe frequency of visits, clinical characteristics, adverse events, and outcomes of LVAD-supported children treated in ED settings and (2) to evaluate for associations between specified patient outcomes and ED care location.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of children in a single-center outpatient VAD program who presented to several EDs during a 10-year period. We defined adverse events according to the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network registry guidelines. Secondary analysis evaluated for associations between specified patient outcomes (adverse events, hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions) and ED care location (institutional vs other ED).

RESULTS

Of 104 subjects with LVAD implantations during the study period, 30 (28.8%) transitioned to outpatient care. Among subjects in the outpatient VAD program, 24 (80%) of 30 had 54 visits to various EDs over 141.9 patient-months. The median age at time of ED visit was 13.5 years (range, 7.2-17.9 years). The median number of visits per subject was 1 (range, 0-6). The most common complaints on arrival to the ED were vomiting or abdominal pain (16.7%), fever (15.3%), and headache (13.9%). Seventeen adverse events occurred during 14 (25.9%) of 54 ED visits. The most common adverse events were major infection (33.3%) and right heart failure (16.7%). Hospital admission resulted from 41 (75.9%) of 54 ED visits, including 17 (41.5%) of 41 to a cardiovascular intensive care unit. Care at a nonspecialty ED was associated with a higher rate of hospitalization (93.8% vs 68.4%, P = 0.049). During the study period, 4 subjects (13.3%) died, including 1 patient on destination therapy, 1 with multisystem organ failure due to cardiogenic shock, and 2 with hemorrhagic stroke. No patient died while in the ED.

CONCLUSIONS

Among subjects in a single outpatient pediatric VAD program presenting to the ED, the most common complaints were abdominal pain/vomiting, fever, and headache. The most common adverse events were major infection and right heart failure. Subjects had a high rate of ED utilization and hospital admission.

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on the management of left ventricular assist device-supported patients for the non-left ventricular assist device specialist healthcare provider: Part 2: at the emergency department

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD‐supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non‐expected device‐related and patient–device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD‐supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co‐morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD‐supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD‐supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail.

Safety of Contemporary Heart Failure Therapy in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available concerning the safety, optimal administration and benefits of contemporary heart failure therapy in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

METHODS

Between 2015 and 2019, 257 patients underwent LVAD implantation and were included in this observational study. Oral heart failure therapy was initiated and uptitrated during the further course. After propensity matching and excluding patients with immediate postoperative treatment in an affiliated center with different medical standards, hospitalization rates and mortality within 12 months after LVAD implantation were compared between 83 patients who received medical therapy including an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and 83 patients who did not receive an ARNI.

RESULTS

The overall use of heart-failure medications after 12 months was high: prescriptions: beta-blockers, 85%; angiotensin inhibiting drugs, 90% (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors 30%, angiotensin receptor blockers 23%, ARNI 37%); mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 80%. No serious drug-related adverse events occurred. The conditional 1-year survival in the group with ARNIs was 97% (95% CI: 94%-100%) compared to 88% in the group without an ARNI (95% CI: 80%-96%); P = 0.06.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary heart failure therapy is safe in patients with LVADs. No increase in serious adverse events was seen in patients receiving ARNIs. No significant difference in the conditional 1-year survival was seen between the ARNI group and the nonARNI group.

Asymptomatic ventricular fibrillation in continuous flow left-ventricular assist device

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have increased survival for heart failure patients. Individuals with LVADs are a growing patient population with frequent complications and Emergency Department (ED) visits. A 50-year-old female presented to the ED due to a low flow alarm on her LVAD. Upon arrival in the ED she was noted to be in ventricular fibrillation. She was defibrillated with restoration to normal sinus rhythm and was started on amiodarone. An implantable cardiac defibrillator was placed during hospital admission. Amiodarone was continued as an outpatient. Patients with continuous flow LVADs can be in dysrhythmias including ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation and remain relatively asymptomatic. We present a rare case of a patient with an LVAD and ventricular fibrillation who was completely asymptomatic in the ED.

Left Ventricular Assist Device Multialarm Emergency: A High-Fidelity Simulation Case for Emergency Medicine Residents

INTRODUCTION

As left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) become more prevalent in the treatment of patients with end-stage heart failure, emergency physicians must become experts in the management and resuscitation of patients with LVADs. As with other high-acuity, low-occurrence scenarios, managing the unstable LVAD patient makes for an ideal topic for simulation-based resident education.

METHODS

By incorporating a high-fidelity HeartMate 3 LVAD task trainer, our program developed and executed a novel LVAD simulation activity for our emergency medicine resident physicians. In the scenario, a 65-year-old male with recent LVAD placement arrived at a community hospital with undifferentiated hypotension. Various device alarms activated during the scenario and required intervention. Ultimately, the patient was found to be in septic/hypovolemic shock and only survived with appropriate resuscitation. We implemented a postscenario survey to assess the effectiveness of the simulation activity and administered it to 27 residents.

RESULTS

Content and delivery of our simulation were found to be effective; all survey questions regarding content and delivery obtained a mean score of 4.5 or greater on a 5-point Likert scale. Residents reported an overall high level of confidence in achieving most of the skill-based learning objectives (most scores > 4.1). The two objectives with the lowest confidence ratings were troubleshooting an LVAD and its various alarms (3.8) and demonstrating the ability to assess an LVAD patient (3.9).

DISCUSSION

Our LVAD simulation activity was successful and also revealed several potential areas for future research and simulation improvement.

Patterns of emergency department utilization for LVAD patients compared with non-LVAD patients

Background

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients are vulnerable to over-utilization of resources.

Methods and results

We explored the pattern of emergency department (ED) presentations of LVAD patients and their costs compared with non-LVAD heart failure patients. ED visits between 7/2008 and 7/2017 were reviewed to identify 145 LVAD patients, and 435 patients with known heart failure were selected using propensity score matching for age and sex. ED evaluation metrics, hospitalization cost, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Although the most common ED presentations and their frequency differed between groups, few were LVAD specific. LVAD patients were more likely to have taken personal vehicles or be flown to the ED. They had similar times to triage, rooming, and physician evaluation compared with non-LVAD patients. However, LVAD patients were noted to have a shorter time from physician assessment to disposition (109.8 min vs. 177.0 min, p < 0.001) and, overall, LVAD patients had shorter ED LOS (6.33 vs. 9.82 hrs, p = 0.0001). For patients admitted, no significant difference was found between groups in hospital LOS (6.67 vs 6.58 days, p = 0.928) or total cost ($28,766 vs $21,524, p = 0.087).

Conclusion

Shorter disposition times without increases in LOS or costs may identify a created healthcare disparity among LVAD patients.

Innovative Left Ventricular Assist Device in High-fidelity Patient Simulator

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are implantable mechanical devices that pump blood from the apex of the left ventricle to the aorta in order to assist the forward flow of blood; they are most commonly used as a bridge to transplant for patients with heart failure. As of February 2019, a total of 25,145 patients with ventricular assist devices have been reported in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs). As this number continues to grow, more and more of these patients will inevitably be seen in the acute care setting outside of their defined LVAD center. Currently, however, LVAD emergencies represent a high-acuity low-occurrence event with limited opportunities for exposure and mastery for most physicians. Therefore, a growing need exists for emergency care providers to familiarize themselves with these devices and the management of LVAD emergencies. We present a novel model for the simulation of LVAD emergencies created through simple modifications of a Laerdal 3G Manikin.

[Recommendations for emergency management of patients with permanent mechanical circulatory support : Consensus statement of DGTHG, DIVI, DGIIN, DGAI, DGINA, DGfK and DGK]

The prevalence of patients living with long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is rapidly increasing due to improved technology, improved survival, reduced adverse event profiles, greater reliability and mechanical durability, and limited numbers of organs available for donation. Patients with long-term MCS are very likely to require emergency medical support due to MCS-associated complications (e.g., right heart failure, left ventricular assist device malfunction, hemorrhage and pump thrombosis) but also due to non-MCS-associated conditions. Because of the unique characteristics of mechanical support, management of these patients is complicated and there is very little literature on emergency care for these patients. The purpose of this national scientific statement is to present consensus-based recommendations for the initial evaluation and resuscitation of adult patients with long-term MCS.

Adverse-Event Free Survival, Hospitalizations, and Mortality in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Rural-Urban Cohort Comparison

BACKGROUND

The number of individuals with advanced heart failure (HF) receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is growing. Postimplantation LVAD recipients return home to both rural and urban locations. The impact of rural or urban living on postimplantation outcomes has not been adequately explored.

OBJECTIVE

This cohort study examined adverse event-free survival, hospitalization-free survival, and all-cause mortality between rural and urban LVAD recipients in the first 2 years after implantation.

METHODS

Data from LVAD recipients (N = 141) implanted at a single center in the northeastern United States were analyzed. Recipients of LVAD were designated as rural or urban by county of residence. Adverse events, hospitalizations, and survival time were examined using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven percent of LVAD recipients in the cohort were rural. Two-thirds of all LVAD recipients experienced at least 1 adverse event (96/141, 68.1%). Although more urban recipients experienced adverse events, including death, rural versus urban models of both adverse events and survival were nonsignificant (adverse events: log-rank = 1.18, P = .28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-1.63; P = .89; survival: log-rank =2.81, P = .09; HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.17-1.23; P = .12). Rural LVAD recipients experienced significantly more hospitalizations and shorter hospitalization-free survival (log-rank = 6.67, P = .009). However, the HR for survival was nonsignificant (HR, 1.5; 95% CI, 0.94-2.39; P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent adverse events and hospitalizations are of ongoing concern for LVAD recipients. More data are necessary to understand why urban LVAD recipients may experience shorter survival time compared with rural counterparts. Hospitalization may serve as a protective factor for rural LVAD recipients.

Left ventricular assist devices and their complications: A review for emergency clinicians

INTRODUCTION

End stage heart failure is associated with high mortality. However, recent developments such as the ventricular assist device (VAD) have improved patient outcomes, with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) most commonly implanted.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review evaluates LVAD epidemiology, indications, normal function and components, and the assessment and management of complications in the emergency department (ED).

DISCUSSION

The LVAD is a life-saving device in patients with severe heart failure. While first generation devices provided pulsatile flow, current LVAD devices produce continuous flow. Normal components include the pump, inflow and outflow cannulas, driveline, and external controller. Complications related to the LVAD can be divided into those that are LVAD-specific and LVAD-associated, and many of these complications can result in severe patient morbidity and mortality. LVAD-specific complications include device malfunction/failure, pump thrombosis, and suction event, while LVAD-associated complications include bleeding, cerebrovascular event, infection, right ventricular failure, dysrhythmia, and aortic regurgitation. Assessment of LVAD function, patient perfusion, and mean arterial pressure is needed upon presentation. Electrocardiogram and bedside ultrasound are key evaluations in the ED. LVAD evaluation and management require a team-based approach, and consultation with the LVAD specialist is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Emergency clinician knowledge of LVAD function, components, and complications is integral in optimizing care of these patients.

Approach to Complications of Ventricular Assist Devices: A Clinical Review for the Emergency Provider

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a major public health problem in the United States. Increasingly, patients with advanced heart failure that fail medical therapy are being treated with implanted ventricular assist devices (VADs).

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an evidence-based summary of the current data for the evaluation and management of implanted VAD complications in an emergency department context.

DISCUSSION

With a prevalence of >5.8 million individuals and >550,000 new cases diagnosed each year, heart failure is a major public health problem in the United States. Increasingly, patients with advanced heart failure that fail medical therapy are being treated with implanted VADs. As the prevalence of patients with VADs continues to grow, they will sporadically present to the emergency department, regardless of whether the facility is a designated VAD center. As a result, all emergency physicians must be familiar with the basic principles of VAD function, as well as the diagnosis and initial management of VAD-related complications. In this review, we address these topics, with a focus on contemporary third-generation continuous flow VADs. This review will help supplement the critical care skills of emergency physicians in managing this complex patient population.

CONCLUSIONS

The cornerstone of managing the unstable VAD patient is rapid initiation of high-quality supportive care and recognition of device-related complications, as well as the identification and use of specialist VAD teams and other resources for support. Emergency physicians must understand VADs so that they may optimally manage these complex patients.

An Urban 9-1-1 System's Experience with Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used with increasing frequency and left in place for longer periods of time. Prior publications have focused on the mechanics of troubleshooting the device itself. We aim to describe the epidemiology of LVAD patient presentations to emergency medical services (EMS), prehospital assessments and interventions, and hospital outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of known LVAD patients that belong to a single academic center's heart failure program who activated the 9-1-1 system and were transported by an urban EMS system to one of the center's 2 emergency departments between January 2012 and December 2015. Identifying demographics were used to query the electronic medical record of the responding city fire agency and contracted transporting ambulance service. Two reviewers abstracted prehospital chief complaint, vital signs, assessments, and interventions. Emergency department and hospital outcomes were retrieved separately. Results: From January 2012 to December 2015, 15 LVAD patients were transported 16 times. The most common prehospital chief complaint was weakness (7/16), followed by chest pain (3/16). Of the 7 patients presenting with weakness, one was diagnosed with a stroke in the emergency department. Another patient was diagnosed with subarachnoid hemorrhage and expired during hospital admission. This was the only death in the cohort. The most common hospital diagnosis was GI bleed (3/16). The overall admission rate was 87.5% (14/16). Conclusions: EMS interactions with LVAD patients are infrequent but have high rates of admission and incidence of life-threatening diagnoses. The most common prehospital presenting symptoms were weakness and chest pain, and most prehospital interactions did not require LVAD-specific interventions. In addition to acquiring technical knowledge regarding LVADs, EMS providers should be aware of non-device-related complications including intracranial and GI bleeding and take this into account during their assessment.

Analysis of Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices Presenting to an Urban Emergency Department

Introduction

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion is an increasingly common intervention for patients with advanced heart failure; however, published literature on the emergency department (ED) presentation of this population is limited. The objective of this study was to characterize ED presentations of patients with LVADs with a focus on device-specific complications to inform provider education and preparation initiatives.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of all patients with LVADs followed at an urban academic medical center presenting to the ED over a five-year period (July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014). Two abstractors reviewed 45 randomly selected charts to standardize the abstraction process and establish a priori categories for reason for presentation to the ED. Remaining charts were then divided evenly for review by one of the two abstractors. Primary outcomes for this study were (1) frequency of and (2) reason for presentation to the ED by patients with LVADs.

Results

Of 349 patients with LVADs identified, 143 (41.0%) had ED encounters during the study period. There were 620 total ED encounters, (range 1 to 32 encounters per patient, median=3, standard deviation=5.3). Among the encounters, 431 (69.5%) resulted in admission. The most common reasons for presentation were bleeding (e.g., gastrointestinal, epistaxis) (182, 29.4%); infection (127, 20.5%); heart failure exacerbation (68, 11.0%); pain (56, 9.0%); other (45, 7.3%); and arrhythmias (40, 6.5%). Fifty-two encounters (8.4%) were device-specific; these patients frequently presented with abnormal device readings (37, 6.0%). Interventions for device-specific presentations included anticoagulation regimen adjustment (16/52, 30.8%), pump exchange (9, 17.3%), and hardware repair (6, 11.5%). Pump thrombosis occurred in 23 cases (3.7% of all encounters). No patients required cardiopulmonary resuscitation or died in the ED.

Conclusion

This is the largest study known to the investigators to report the rate of ED presentations of patients with LVADs and provide analysis of device-specific presentations. In patients who do have device-specific ED presentations, pump thrombosis is a common diagnosis and can present without device alarms. Specialized LVAD education and preparation initiatives for ED providers should emphasize the recognition and management of the most common and critical conditions for this patient population, which have been identified in this study as bleeding, infection, heart failure, and pump thrombosis.