Abdominal X-ray imaging for detection of left ventricular assist device driveline damage

Driveline damage and repair in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

With mounting time on continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) support, patients occasionally sustain damage to the device driveline. Outcomes associated with external and internal driveline damage and repair are currently not well documented. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of driveline damage and its repair. Electronic search was performed to identify all relevant studies published over the past 20 years. Fifteen studies were selected for analysis comprising of 55 patients with CF-LVAD dysfunction due to driveline damage. Demographic and perioperative variables along with outcomes including survival rates were extracted and pooled for the systematic review. Most patients (53/55) were supported on HeartMate II LVAD (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL). Internal damage was more commonly reported than external damage [69.1% (38/55) vs. 30.9% (17/55), P = .01]. Median time to driveline damage was 1.9 years [IQR 1.0, 2.5]. Most patients presented with a CF-LVAD alarm [94.5% (52/55)] and patients with internal driveline damage had a significantly higher rate of alarm activation compared to that observed for those with external damage [38/38 (100%) vs. 14/17 (82.4%), P = .04]. Patients with internal driveline dysfunction were more likely to experience component wear compared to those with external driveline dysfunction [10/38 (26.3%) vs. 0/17 (0%), P = .05]; 14.5% of patients (8/55) underwent external repair of the driveline, 5.5% (3/55) were treated with rescue tape, and 5.5% (3/55) were placed on an ungrounded cable, indicating a short-to-shield event had occurred. A total of 49.1% of patients (27/55) underwent CF-LVAD exchange, 5.5% (3/55) were weaned off the CF-LVAD to explant, and 5.5% (3/55) underwent emergent heart transplantation. The median length of hospital stay was 12 days [IQR 7, 12] and 30-day mortality rate was 14.5% (8/55). Driveline damage was more commonly reported at an internal location and despite being a well-recognized complication, mortality still appears high.

HFSA/SAEM/ISHLT clinical expert consensus document on the emergency management of patients with ventricular assist devices

Mechanical circulatory support is now widely accepted as a viable long-term treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure (HF). As the range of indications for the implantation of ventricular assist devices grows, so does the number of patients living in the community with durable support. Because of their underlying disease and comorbidities, in addition to the presence of mechanical support, these patients are at a high risk for medical urgencies and emergencies (Table 1). Thus, it is the responsibility of clinicians to understand the basics of their emergency care. This consensus document represents a collaborative effort by the Heart Failure Society of America, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, and the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) to educate practicing clinicians about the emergency management of patients with ventricular assist devices. The target audience includes HF specialists and emergency medicine physicians, as well as general cardiologists and community-based providers.

Chest radiographs of cardiac devices (Part 2): Ventricular assist devices

Heart failure is considered a worldwide pandemic affecting 26 million people globally. Patients who are unfit or waiting for cardiac transplantation may benefit from alternate mechanical support therapies using ventricular assist devices. It is not uncommon for radiologists, especially those working in institutions with a high volume of cardiac transplantations, to be presented with radiographs containing these devices. The role of the radiologist is not only to accurately identify these devices, but also to evaluate for any complications.

Mechanical circulatory assist devices: a primer for critical care and emergency physicians

Mechanical circulatory assist devices are now commonly used in the treatment of severe heart failure as bridges to cardiac transplant, as destination therapy for patients who are not transplant candidates, and as bridges to recovery and “decision-making”. These devices, which can be used to support the left or right ventricles or both, restore circulation to the tissues, thereby improving organ function. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are the most common support devices. To care for patients with these devices, health care providers in emergency departments (EDs) and intensive care units (ICUs) need to understand the physiology of the devices, the vocabulary of mechanical support, the types of complications patients may have, diagnostic techniques, and decision-making regarding treatment. Patients with LVADs who come to the ED or are admitted to the ICU usually have nonspecific clinical symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath, hypotension, anemia, chest pain, syncope, hemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, jaundice, fever, oliguria and hematuria, altered mental status, headache, seizure, and back pain. Other patients are seen for cardiac arrest, psychiatric issues, sequelae of noncardiac surgery, and trauma. Although most patients have LVADs, some may have biventricular support devices or total artificial hearts. Involving a team of cardiac surgeons, perfusion experts, and heart-failure physicians, as well as ED and ICU physicians and nurses, is critical for managing treatment for these patients and for successful outcomes. This review is designed for critical care providers who may be the first to see these patients in the ED or ICU.