181: Early Neurological Adverse Events (NAE) after Pulsatile VAD Implantation in 455 Patients: Incidence, Severity and Outcome

Sex Differences in Left Ventricular Assist Device-related Emergency Department Encounters in the United States

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data regarding sex differences in the profiles and outcomes of ambulatory patients on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support who present to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 57,200 LVAD-related ED patient encounters from the 2010 to 2018 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision, codes identified patients aged 18 years or older with LVADs and associated primary and comorbidity diagnoses. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were stratified by sex and compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of hospital admission and death. Female patient encounters comprised 27.2% of ED visits and occurred at younger ages and more frequently with obesity and depression (all P < .01). There were no sex differences in presentation for device complication, stroke, infection, or heart failure (all P > .05); however, female patient encounters were more often respiratory- and genitourinary or gynecological related (both P < .01). After adjustment for age group, diabetes, depression, and hypertension, male patient encounters had a 38% increased odds of hospital admission (95% confidence interval 1.20-1.58), but there was no sex difference in the adjusted odds of death (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.45).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient encounters of females on LVAD support have significantly different comorbidities and outcomes compared with males. Further inquiry into these sex differences is imperative to improve long-term outcomes.

Sex-specific outcomes in patients receiving continuous-flow left ventricular devices as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy

Reports on sex-related outcomes in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients are conflicting. In addition, females have been underrepresented in most multicenter randomized controlled trials for mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The objective of our study was to analyze our experience implanting 130 continuous-flow LVADs and to determine the impact of sex on survival. We identified 130 patients who underwent implantation of a continuous-flow LVAD at our institution. Patients were stratified into two groups based on sex. Variables were compared using two-sided t-tests, χ(2) tests, Cox proportional hazards models, and log-rank tests to determine whether there was a difference between the two groups and if sex was a significant independent predictor of outcome. Of the 130 patients, 35 were females and 95 were males. Female patients had worse pre-LVAD cardiac output and cardiac index and were more likely to be on MCS at the time of implantation. Male patients had worse renal function. Survival was analogous for both cohorts with 30 day, 6 month, 1 year, and 2 year survivals of 97%, 90.8%, 90.8%, and 84.3%, respectively, for female patients versus 94.7%, 87.9%, 78.4%, and 72.8%, respectively, for male patients. The incidence of other LVAD-related complications was also similar in both groups. Gender did not predict postoperative mortality on univariate analysis. Contrary to most published reports, female and male LVAD patients have similar postoperative and midterm survival, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, and postoperative complications. It appears that females have gained more benefit from newer generation devices compared to males.

HLA and MICA allosensitization patterns among patients supported by ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are increasingly being used as a bridge to transplantation and have been implicated as a risk factor for allosensitization to human leukocyte antigens (HLA). We investigate the association between VAD and allosensitization to human leukocyte antigens (HLA) and major-histocompatibility-complex (MHC) class I-related Chain A (MICA) antigens.

METHODS

We considered all patients who received a VAD at our institution between 2000 and 2009; 89 of them had pre-VAD and post-VAD (≤6 months after implant) HLA antibody screening. A control group of non-VAD heart transplant candidates was constructed with at least 2 pre-transplant panel-reactive antibody (PRA) tests within 8 months. Two controls were randomly selected/VAD patient matched for year (n = 178). Patients and controls with available sera from these time-points were tested by Luminex/flow PRA single-antigen beads and by MICA antibody Luminex single-antigen beads. Medical records were reviewed for comparison of pre-transplant immunologic risk factors and post-transplant outcomes between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Compared with controls, VAD patients had greater Class I differences between peak and initial PRA (18% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001) and higher peak PRA (24% vs. 6%, p < 0.0001). The differences between the 2 groups in Class II were less pronounced than in Class I. Of patients who had single-antigen testing, VAD implantation was significantly associated with development of new HLA antibody specificities (Class I and/or Class II) post-VAD with an increase in calculated PRA (cPRA) post-VAD compared with controls (16% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001). This risk was still present after adjusting for age, gender, pre-VAD PRA, transfusion and duration of follow-up in a multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001 and 0.02, respectively). There were no differences in development of MICA antibodies between the 2 groups (14% in both). There was no significant difference in the incidence of pre-transplant positive T-cell crossmatch, pre-transplant donor-specific HLA antibodies, rejection episodes or graft survival between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that VAD is associated with significant HLA allosensitization independent of common risk factors.

Should women receive left ventricular assist device support?: findings from INTERMACS

BACKGROUND

Small studies have reported women to have worse outcomes and more adverse events after implantation of mechanical circulatory support device compared with men. To further evaluate sex differences in outcome, we used the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

There were 401 women (pulsatile devices=78) and 1535 men (pulsatile devices=402) from 89 institutions who were prospectively enrolled into the INTERMACS database for primary implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) between June 23, 2006, and March 31, 2010. Extensive preimplantation and outcome data were collected on all patients. With a mean follow-up of 7 months, 67 females (17%) died and 250 males (16%) died. There was no statistically significant sex difference in mortality for either pulsatile-flow (P=0.82) or continuous-flow (P=0.95) devices in adjusted and unadjusted models. There were also no statistically significant sex differences with time to first infection, bleeding, or device malfunction. However, female sex was associated with an increased hazard of first neurological event (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.05-1.96; P=0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant sex differences in mortality, time to first infection, bleeding, or device malfunction with either pulsatile- or continuous-flow LVADs. However, women had an increased risk of first neurological event. For urgent/emergent mechanical support, the benefit of LVAD support likely outweighs the risk, but it remains less clear for women undergoing elective LVAD implantation.