Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices and usefulness of a standardized strategy to reduce drive-line infections

Unplanned hospital readmissions following HeartMate 3 implantation: Readmission rates, causes, and impact on survival

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmissions following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remain a frequent comorbidity, associated with decreased quality of life and increased resources utilization. This study sought to determine causes, predictors, and impact on survival of hospitalizations during HeartMate 3 (HM3) support.

METHODS

All patients implanted with HM3 between November 2014 to December 2019 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center were consecutively enrolled in the study. Demographics and clinical characteristics from the index admission and the first outpatient visit were collected and used to estimate 1-year and 900-day readmission-free survival and overall survival. Multivariable analysis was performed for subsequent readmissions.

RESULTS

Of 182 patients who received a HM3 LVAD, 167 (92%) were discharged after index admission and experienced 407 unplanned readmissions over the median follow up of 727 (interquartile range (IQR): 410.5, 1124.5) days. One-year and 900-day mean cumulative number of all-cause unplanned readmissions was 0.43 (95%CI, 0.36, 0.51) and 1.13 (95%CI, 0.99, 1.29). The most frequent causes of rehospitalizations included major infections (29.3%), bleeding (13.2%), device-related (12.5%), volume overload (7.1%), and other (28%). One-year and 900-day survival free from all-cause readmission was 38% (95%CI, 31-46%) and 16.6% (95%CI, 10.3-24.4%). One-year and 900-day freedom from 2, 3, and ≥4 readmissions were 60.7%, 74%, 74.5% and 26.2%, 33.3%, 41.3%. One-year and 900-day survival were unaffected by the number of readmissions and remained >90%. Male sex, ischemic etiology, diabetes, lower serum creatinine, longer duration of index hospitalization, and a history of readmission between discharge and the first outpatient visit were associated with subsequent readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned hospital readmissions after HM3 are common, with infections and bleeding accounting for the majority of readmissions. Irrespective of the number of readmissions, one-year survival remained unaffected.

Mechanical Characterization of Anchoring Devices for the Prevention of Driveline Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

Driveline infection (DLI) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. Because trauma to the driveline exit-site (DLES) is a risk factor for DLI, adhesive anchoring devices are used to immobilize the DL. In this study, commonly used products (identified through literature review and contact with nine international VAD implantation centers) were mechanically characterized to evaluate their effectiveness in preventing DLES trauma. Eight devices were tested in an in vitro abdominal model of the DLES, where a tensile force (10 N) was applied to a HeartMate 3 DL, whereas the resulting force ( FTotal ) on the DLES was recorded using a three-axis load cell. Four devices (CathGrip: FTotal = 2.1 ± 0.4 N, Secutape: FTotal = 2.6 ± 0.3 N, Hollister: FTotal = 2.7 ± 0.5 N, Tubimed: FTotal = 2.9 ± 0.2 N) were significantly ( p < 0.05) better at preventing tensile forces at the DLES compared to the other four devices (Main-Lock: FTotal = 3.7 [0.7] N, Secutape sensitive: FTotal = 3.9 ± 0.4 N, Foley Anchor: FTotal = 4.3 ± 0.5 N, Grip-Lok: FTotal = 5.4 ± 0.8 N). Immobilization of the DL with each anchoring device resulted in lower tensile force on the DLES than without an anchor ( FTotal = 8.2 ± 0.3 N). In conclusion, the appropriate selection of anchoring devices plays a critical role in reducing the risk of DLI, whereas the CathGrip, Secutape, Hollister, or Tubimed were superior in preventing trauma to the DLES in this study.

Left ventricular assist device-associated driveline infections as a specific form of complicated skin and soft tissue infection/acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection - issues and therapeutic options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review comments on the current guidelines for the treatment of wound infections under definition of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). However, wound infections around a catheter, such as driveline infections of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) are not specifically listed under this definition in any of the existing guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Definitions and classification of LVAD infections may vary across countries, and the existing guidelines and recommendations may not be equally interpreted among physicians, making it unclear if these infections can be considered as ABSSSI. Consequently, the use of certain antibiotics that are approved for ABSSSI may be considered as 'off-label' for LVAD infections, leading to rejection of reimbursement applications in some countries, affecting treatment strategies, and hence, patients' outcomes. However, we believe driveline exit site infections related to LVAD can be included within the ABSSSI definition.

SUMMARY

We argue that driveline infections meet the criteria for ABSSSI which would enlarge the 'on-label' antibiotic armamentarium for treating these severe infections, thereby improving the patients' quality of life.

Driveline dressings used in heartmate patients and local complications: A retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Patients with long-term ventricular assist devices (VAD) are predisposed to infection, bleeding, and pressure injuries at the insertion of the driveline. There is no consensus on a driveline dressing protocol. Chlorhexidine is often used to clean the driveline exit site and has been associated with lower rates of infection. For driveline coverage, bacteriostatic agents and transparent film have shown good results, but are costly. The same issue was associated with anchorage devices.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the types of dressings used in the driveline of patients using HeartMate (HM) and to describe the incidence density of local complications (infection, bleeding, and pressure injury) within 30 days postoperatively.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted and included 22 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after implantation of HM II and III in a Brazilian private hospital.

RESULTS

Several types of dressings were used in the drivelines. There were 22 different types of dressings. Dressing type 6 (Chlorhexidine, Excilon, Gauze and IV3000) were the most used (45.4%). Subjects using the Flexi-Trak anchoring device had a higher rate of local bleeding (50.0%) and those who used the Hollister device had more infection (61.1%) and pressure injury associated with a medical device (11.1%), compared to others. Infection was the primary complication (45.4%), followed by local bleeding (27.7%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the high variability of products used in the driveline of patients using HeartMate, the dressing made with chlorhexidine, silver-impregnated absorbent foam and transparent film, and the use of anchoring devices was the most frequently used. Infection was the most common complication.

Prophylactic negative pressure wound therapy is not effective for preventing driveline infection following left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Driveline infection (DLI) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains an unresolved problem. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) promotes wound healing by applying negative pressure on the surface of the wound. Recently, the prophylactic application of NPWT to closed surgical incisions has decreased surgical site infections in various postsurgical settings. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic NPWT for preventing DLI in patients with LVAD implantation.

METHODS

Prophylactic NPWT was provided to 50 patients who received continuous-flow LVADs as bridge-to-transplant therapy at our institution between May 2018 and October 2020 (NPWT group). The negative pressure dressing was applied immediately after surgery and retained on the driveline exit site for 7 days with a continuous application of -125 mm Hg negative pressure. The primary outcome was DLI within 1 year of LVAD implantation. We compared the rate of DLI incidence in the NPWT group with that in the historical control cohort (50 patients) treated with the standard dressing (SD) who received LVAD implantation between July 2015 and April 2018 (SD group).

RESULTS

No severe complications were associated with the NPWT. During the follow-up period, DLI was diagnosed in 16 participants (32%) in the NPWT group and 21 participants (42%) in the SD group. The rates of DLI incidence and freedom from DLI did not differ between groups (p = 0.30 and p = 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic NPWT at the driveline exit site was safe following LVAD implantation. However, it did not significantly reduce the risk of DLI.

Impact of an improved driveline management for HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of a standardized driveline care strategy, including a subfascial-tunneling method and dressing protocol, on the incidence of driveline infection (DLI).

METHODS

DLI data from all HeartMate II (HMII) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) patients (including exchange devices) were retrospectively collected between 2013 and 2021. The driveline subfascial-tunneling method was altered in three steps (A: right direct; B: left triple, C: right triple), and the shower protocol was changed in two steps (A: with/without cover, B: with cover). Disinfection was individually tailored after changing the shower protocol. Complications associated with morbidity and mortality were evaluated for each modification.

RESULTS

During the study period, 80 devices were implanted (HMII, n = 54; HM3, n = 26). The 8-year incidence of DLI was 15% (n = 8) in HMII patients and 0% in HM3 patients (p = 0.039). DLI was not associated with hospital mortality. The modified dressing protocol and tunneling method was associated with a significantly better DLI incidence rate in comparison to the previous one: Protocol-A (n = 17), Protocol-B (n = 63), 35% vs 3% (p = 0.0009), Method-A (n = 13), Method-B (n = 42), Method-C (n = 25), 46% vs 5% vs 0% (p = 0.0001). The rete of freedom form DLI at 1, 2, and 3 years had also significant difference between groups: Protocol-A and Protocol-B, 80%, 54%, 54% vs 96%, 96%, 96%, respectively (p < 0.0001), Method-A, Method-B and Method-C, 76%, 44%, 44%, vs 94%, 94%, 94% vs 100%, 100%, respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized triple driveline tunneling strategy and waterproof dressing protocol reduced driveline infection in HM3 patients to 0%.

Driveline Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients: Effect of Standardized Protocols, Pathogen Type, and Treatment Strategy

Driveline infection (DLI) is common after left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Limited data exist on DLI prevention and management. We investigated the impact of standardized driveline care initiatives, specific pathogens, and chronic antibiotic suppression (CAS) on DLI outcomes. 591 LVAD patients were retrospectively categorized based on driveline care initiatives implemented at our institution (2009-2019). Era (E)1: nonstandardized care; E2: standardized driveline care protocol; E3: addition of marking driveline exit site; E4: addition of "no shower" policy. 87(15%) patients developed DLI at a median (IQR) of 403(520) days. S. aureus and P. aeruginosa were the most common pathogens. 31 (36%) of DLI patients required incision and drainage (I&D) and 5 (5.7%) device exchange. P. aeruginosa significantly increased risk for initial I&D (HR 2.7, 95% CI, 1.1-6.3) and recurrent I&D or death (HR 4.2, 95% CI, 1.4-12.5). Initial I&D was associated with a significant increased risk of death (HR 2.92 (1.33-6.44); P = 0.008) when compared to patients who did not develop DLI. Implementation of standardized driveline care protocol (E2) was associated with increased 2-year freedom from DLI compared to nonstandardized care (HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.2-0.6, P < 0.01). Additional preventive strategies (E3&E4) showed no further reduction in DLI rates. 57(65%) DLI patients received CAS, 44% of them required escalation to intravenous antibiotics and/or I&D. Presence of P. aeruginosa DLI markedly increased risk for I&D or death. Conditional survival of patients progressing to I&D is diminished. Standardized driveline care protocol was associated with a significant reduction in DLI, while additional preventive strategies require further testing.

Decreasing driveline infections in patients supported on ventricular assist devices: a care pathway approach

Background

Driveline infections (DLIs) are a common adverse event in patients on ventricular assist devices (VADs) with incidence ranging from 14% to 59%. DLIs have an impact on patients and the healthcare system with efforts to prevent DLIs being essential. Prior to our intervention, our program had no standard driveline management presurgery and postsurgery. The purpose of this Quality Improvement (QI) initiative was to reduce DLIs and related admissions among patients with VAD within the first year post implant.

Methods

In anticipation of the QI project, we undertook a review of the programs’ current driveline management procedures and completed a survey with patients with VAD to identify current barriers to proper driveline management. Retrospective data were collected for a pre-QI intervention baseline comparison group, which included adult patients implanted with a durable VAD between 1 January 2017 and 31 July 2018. A three-pronged care pathway (CP) was initiated among patients implanted during August 2018 to July 2019. The CP included standardised intraoperative, postoperative and predischarge teaching initiatives and tracking. Using statistical process control methods, DLIs and readmissions in the first year post implant were compared between patients in the CP group and non-CP patients. P-charts were used to detect special cause variation.

Results

A higher proportion of CP group patients developed a DLI in the first year after implant (52% vs 32%). None developed a DLI during the index admission, which differed from the non-CP group and met criteria for special cause variation. There was a downward trend in cumulative DLI-related readmissions among CP group patients (55% vs 67%). There was no association between CP compliance and development of DLIs within 1 year post implant.

Conclusion

The CP did not lead to a reduction in the incidence of DLIs but there was a decrease in the proportion of patients with DLIs during their index admission and those readmitted for DLIs within 1 year post implant. This suggests that the CP played a role in decreasing the impact of DLIs in this patient population. However, given the short time period of follow-up longer follow-up will be required to look for sustained effects.

Preventing Driveline Infection during Left Ventricular Assist Device Support by the HeartMate 3: A Survey-Based Study

PURPOSE

Driveline infection (DLI) is a significant source of morbidity and mortality during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support yet limited studies are available to describe center-level prevalence, preventive practices and their potential effectiveness.

METHODS

We surveyed LVAD centers in the United States to determine program burden and preventive practices for DLI during HeartMate (HM) 3 support. An online, anonymous, question-based survey was sent to expert providers at implanting centers. Only a single respondent completed the survey for each center. As an exploratory analysis, we compared specific DLI preventive practices between centers with low (≤10%) and high (>10%) reported prevalence of DLI.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight centers responded to the survey (response rate: 50%). Respondent were comprised of 37 (47%) heart failure cardiologists, 27 (35%) LVAD coordinators and 14 (18%) cardiothoracic surgeons. The prevalence of DLI during HM3 was reported as ≤10% by 27 (35%), 11-25% by 36 (46%) and >25% by 16 (19%) of centers. Thirteen (17%) centers had a body mass index threshold for device placement, 29 (37%) utilized a counter incision, 66 (81%) placed an anchor stitch and 69 (88%) used an external device to stabilize the DL. Proportionally more centers with a low DLI prevalence used a wound vacuum 6(22%) vs. 3(6%, p=0.03) than those with high DLI.

CONCLUSION

Variation exists in reported prevalence and practices of preventing and managing driveline infections across centers during HM3 support. Further studies are warranted to develop and assess the effectiveness of standardized preventive strategies.

Non-patient factors associated with infections in LVAD recipients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Infections are the most common complication in recipients of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and expenditures. The existing literature examining factors associated with infection in LVAD recipients is limited and principally comprises single-center studies. This scoping review synthesizes all available evidence related to identifying modifiable, non-patient factors associated with infections among LVAD recipients.

METHODS

Published studies were identified through searching 5 bibliographic databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Inclusion criteria required examination of factors associated with infections among recipients of contemporary, implantable, continuous flow LVADs. Key study characteristics were extracted by 4 independent reviewers and current literature described narratively. The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model was used to develop a taxonomy for non-patient related factors (e.g., tasks, tools, technologies, organization, and environment) associated with infections following LVAD implantation. All analyses took place between February 2019 and May 2021.

FINDINGS

A total of 43 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority of included studies were observational (n = 37), single-center (n = 29), from the U.S. (n = 38), and focused on driveline infections (n = 40). Among the 22 evaluated sub-domains of non-patient related factors, only two: increasing center experience and establishing a silicone-skin interface at the driveline exit site, were identified as consistently being associated with a lower risk of infection.

CONCLUSION

This review identified 43 studies that described non-patient related factors associated with infection in LVAD recipients. Only two factors were consistently associated with lower infection risk in LVAD recipients: increasing experience and establishing a silicone-skin interface at driveline exit site. The large variability in reporting across multiple studied interventions limited the ability to discern their effectiveness.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Current knowledge, complications, and future directions

Long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have become a real alternative to heart transplantation in patients with advanced heart failure, achieving a promising 2-year event-free survival rate with new-generation devices. Currently, this technology has spread throughout the world, and any cardiologist or cardiac surgeon should be familiar with its fundamentals and its possible complications as well as the advances made in recent years. The aim of this review is to describe current knowledge, management of complications, and future directions of this novel heart-failure therapy.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)‐supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD‐ supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient‐device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD‐supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non‐cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end‐of‐life approaches are described.

Left Ventricular Assist Device: Indication, Timing, and Management

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are indicated in inotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) patients with pure or predominant LV dysfunction. Survival benefit is less clear in ambulatory, advanced HF. Timing is crucial: early, unnecessary exposure to the risks of surgery, and device-related complications (infections, stroke, and bleeding) should be weighed against the probability of dying or developing irreversible right ventricular and/or end-organ dysfunction while deferring implant. The interplay between LVAD and heart transplantation depends largely on donor availability and allocation rules. Postoperatively, quality of life depends on patients' expectations and is influenced by complications. Patients' preferences, prognosis, and alternative options-including palliation-should be openly discussed and reviewed before and after the operation.

Ventricular Assist Device Driveline Infections: A Systematic Review

Infection is the most common complication in patients undergoing ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation. Driveline exit site (DLES) infection is the most frequent VAD infection and is a significant cause of adverse events in VAD patients, contributing to morbidity, even mortality, and repetitive hospital readmissions. There are many risk factors for driveline infection (DLI) including younger age, smaller constitution of patients, obesity, exposed velour at the DLES, longer duration of device support, lower cardiac index, higher heart failure score, DLES trauma, and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and depression. The incidence of DLI depends also on the device type. Numerous measures to prevent DLI currently exist. Some of them are proven, whereas the others remain controversial. Current recommendations on DLES care and DLI management are predominantly based on expert consensus and clinical experience of the certain centers. However, careful and uniform DLES care including obligatory driveline immobilization, previously prepared sterile dressing change kits, and continuous patient education are probably crucial for prevention of DLI. Diagnosis and treatment of DLI are often challenging because of certain immunological alterations in VAD patients and microbial biofilm formation on the driveline surface areas. Although there are many conservative and surgical methods described in the DLI treatment, the only possible permanent solution for DLI resolution in VAD patients is heart transplantation. This systematic review brings a comprehensive synthesis of recent data on the prevention, diagnostic workup, and conservative and surgical management of DLI in VAD patients.

Driveline exit-site care protocols in patients with left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review

 

OBJECTIVES

Driveline infections continue to be a significant complication following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Driveline exit-site care is crucial for the prevention of infections; however, there are no uniform guidelines. The goal of this study was to provide an overview of the currently published driveline exit-site care protocols in patients with LVAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed. Studies before 15 December 2020 were included if the number of driveline infections was a primary outcome and the driveline exit-site care protocol was explained.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included in the systematic review, including 1602 patients with LVADs. The median of the frequency of driveline infections in the articles was 13.8% with a range of 0–52.6%. There was a marked variability in the methods of care of driveline exit sites, without a standardized driveline dressing technique in patients with LVADs. The frequency of driveline infections was 6–7.5% in studies using a dressing kit that included chlorhexidine, a silver-based dressing and an anchoring device. Furthermore, there was variability in the anchoring devices and the frequency of dressing changes, which varied from daily to weekly. No specific anchoring device or change frequency was found to be superior.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this systematic review, driveline exit care protocols that included chlorhexidine, a silver-based dressing, the use of an anchoring device and dressing kits might be best in reducing driveline infection rates. However, prospective studies with larger cohorts are needed to establish the optimal protocol for driveline exit-site care.

Contemporary Management Strategies in VAD Infection

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of durable ventricular assist devices (VAD) to manage end-stage heart failure is increasing, but infection remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with VAD. In this review, we synthesize recent data pertaining to the epidemiology, diagnosis, management, and prevention of VAD infections, discuss transplant considerations in patients with VAD infections, and highlight remaining knowledge gaps. We also present a conceptual framework for treating clinicians to approach these infections that draws on the same principles that guide the treatment of analogous infections that occur in patients without VAD.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite advances in device design, surgical techniques, and preventative interventions, more than a third of VAD recipients still experience infection as an adverse outcome. Positron emission tomography has emerged as a promising modality for identifying and characterizing VAD infections. High-quality data to support many of the routine therapeutic strategies currently used for VAD infections-including suppressive antibiotic therapy, surgical debridement/device exchange, and novel antimicrobials for emerging multidrug-resistant organisms-remain limited. Although pre-transplant VAD infection may impact some early transplant outcomes, transplantation remains a viable option for patients with most types of VAD infection. Standardized definitions of VAD infection applied to large registry datasets have yielded key insights into the epidemiology of infectious complications among VAD recipients, but more prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of existing and novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

Ventricular Assist Device-Specific Infections

Ventricular assist device (VAD)-specific infections, in particular, driveline infections, are a concerning complication of VAD implantation that often results in significant morbidity and even mortality. The presence of a percutaneous driveline at the skin exit-site and in the subcutaneous tunnel allows biofilm formation and migration by many bacterial and fungal pathogens. Biofilm formation is an important microbial strategy, providing a shield against antimicrobial treatment and human immune responses; biofilm migration facilitates the extension of infection to deeper tissues such as the pump pocket and the bloodstream. Despite the introduction of multiple preventative strategies, driveline infections still occur with a high prevalence of ~10-20% per year and their treatment outcomes are frequently unsatisfactory. Clinical diagnosis, prevention and management of driveline infections are being targeted to specific microbial pathogens grown as biofilms at the driveline exit-site or in the driveline tunnel. The purpose of this review is to improve the understanding of VAD-specific infections, from basic "bench" knowledge to clinical "bedside" experience, with a specific focus on the role of biofilms in driveline infections.

Stroke Risk Following Infection in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device

BACKGROUND

Infection has been associated with stroke in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD); however, little data exist on the timing, type and mortality impact of infection-related stroke.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of HeartMate II (N = 332) and HeartWare (N = 70) LVAD patients from a single center were reviewed. Only strokes (ischemic or hemorrhagic) that occurred within 6 weeks following a LVAD infection were considered in analyses. The association between LVAD infections (wound, pump pocket, driveline and/or bloodstream infection [BSI]), specific pathogens and ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. The impact of infection-related stroke on cumulative survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Of 402 patients, LVAD infection occurred in 158 (39%) including BSI in 107 (27%), driveline infection in 67 (17%), wound infection in 31 (8%) and pump pocket infection in 24 (6%). LVAD infection-related stroke occurred in 20/158 (13%) patients in a median of 4 days (0-36 days) from documented infection. In multivariable analysis, ischemic stroke was associated with wound infection (aOR 9.0, 95% CI 2.4-34.0, P = 0.001) and BSI (aOR 7.7, 95% CI 0.9-66.0, P = 0.064), and hemorrhagic stroke was associated with BSI in 100% of cases (P = 0.01). There was no association with driveline or pump pocket infection. The cumulative survival rate among patients with infection-related stroke was significantly lower compared to those with LVAD infection but no stroke (log-rank P < 0.001). There was a trend toward shorter stroke-free survival among patients with LVAD infection.

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD infections, particularly BSI, are significantly associated with stroke, and infection-related stroke conferred significantly lower cumulative survival.

In Full Flow: Left Ventricular Assist Device Infections in the Modern Era

With the rising prevalence of heart disease in the United States, there is increasing reliance on durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) to treat patients with end-stage heart failure. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), the most common form of durable MCS, are implanted mechanical pumps that connect to an external power source through a transcutaneous driveline. First-generation LVADs were bulky, pulsatile pumps that were frequently complicated by infection. Second-generation LVADs have an improved design, though infection remains a common and serious complication due to the inherent nature of implanted MCS. Infections can affect any component of the LVAD, with driveline infections being the most common. LVAD infections carry significant morbidity and mortality for LVAD patients. Therefore, it is paramount for the multidisciplinary team of clinicians caring for these patients to be familiar with this complication. We review the epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes of LVAD infections.

Risk factors and prognostic impact of left ventricular assist device-associated infections

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated infections may be life-threatening and impact patients' outcome. We aimed to identify the characteristics, risk factors, and prognosis of LVAD-associated infections.

METHODS

Patients included in the ASSIST-ICD study (19 centers) were enrolled. The main outcome was the occurrence of LVAD-associated infection (driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection) during follow-up.

RESULTS

Of the 652 patients enrolled, 201 (30.1%) presented a total of 248 LVAD infections diagnosed 6.5 months after implantation, including 171 (26.2%), 51 (7.8%), and 26 (4.0%) percutaneous driveline infection, pocket infection, or pump/cannula infection, respectively. Patients with infections were aged 58.7 years, and most received HeartMate II (82.1%) or HeartWare (13.4%). Most patients (62%) had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) before LVAD, and 104 (16.0%) had ICD implantation, extraction, or replacement after the LVAD surgery. Main pathogens found among the 248 infections were Staphylococcus aureus (n = 113' 45.4%), Enterobacteriaceae (n = 61; 24.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 34; 13.7%), coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 13; 5.2%), and Candida species (n = 13; 5.2%). In multivariable analysis, HeartMate II (subhazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.36; P = .031) and ICD-related procedures post-LVAD (subhazard ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.03-1.98; P = .031) were significantly associated with LVAD infections. Infections had no detrimental impact on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Left ventricular assist device-associated infections affect one-third of LVAD recipients, mostly related to skin pathogens and gram-negative bacilli, with increased risk with HeartMate II as compared with HeartWare, and in patients who required ICD-related procedures post-LVAD. This is a plea to better select patients needing ICD implantation/replacement after LVAD implantation.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.

VAD infection during bridge-to-transplant, unique aspects of treatment and prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

VAD infections remain a frequent complication of VAD care and can markedly affect patient management before and after transplantation. This review highlights the standard-of-care approaches offered by recent guidelines as well as published data that may improve the care for patients with these challenging and often persistent infections.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prevention and management of VAD infections has become more standardized with updated consensus guidelines published in 2017. Unfortunately, advanced devices have not markedly affected the incidence of VAD infection. Efforts to improve, yet streamline, the prevention of VAD-specific infections are ongoing. However, the data provided in the best of recent publications are rarely effectively comparative. Granular data on management strategies are limited to a few studies. Nevertheless, several publications provide more detailed posttransplant outcomes for patients with pretransplant VAD infections and demonstrate overall excellent posttransplant survival.

SUMMARY

Prevention and management of VAD-specific and VAD-related infections are the ongoing work of all VAD programs. Consensus guidelines are a marker of progress for this field. Despite very good posttransplant outcomes for these patients, more granular data are required to understand how such patients arrive successfully to transplantation and how their posttransplant course is affected.

Ventricular assist device-related infections and solid organ transplantation-Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

The Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation has published evidenced-based guidelines on the prevention and management of infectious complications in SOT recipients since 2004. This updated guideline reviews the epidemiology of ventricular assist device (VAD) infections and provides recommendations for the management and prevention of these infections. Almost one half of those awaiting heart transplantation are supported with VADs. Despite advances in device technologies, VAD infections commonly complicate mechanical circulatory support and remain typified by common components and anatomic locations. These infections have important implications for transplant candidates, most notably increased wait-list mortality. Strategic management of these infections is crucial for successful transplantation. Coincidentally, explantation of all VAD components at the time of transplantation is often the definitive cure for the device-associated infection. Highlighted in this updated guideline is the reported success of transplantation in patients with a variety of pre-existing VAD infections and guidance on post-transplant management strategies.

Driveline Site Is Not a Predictor of Infection After Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Driveline infections (DLIs) remain a major source of morbidity for patients requiring long-term ventricular assist device (VAD) support. We aimed to assess whether VAD driveline exit site (DLES) (abdomen versus chest wall) is associated with DLI. All adult patients who underwent insertion of a HeartWare HVAD or HeartMate II (HMII) between 2009 and 2016 were included. Driveline infection was defined as clinical evidence of DLI accompanied by a positive bacterial swab and need for antibiotics. Competing risks analysis was used to assess the association between patient characteristics and DLI. Ninety-two devices (59 HMII) were implanted in 85 patients (72 men; median age 57.4 years) for bridge to transplant or destination therapy. VAD DLES was chest in 28 (30.4%) devices. Median time on VAD support was 347.5 days (IQR 145.5, 757.5), with 28 transplants and 29 deaths (27 on device). DLI occurred in 24 patients (25 devices) at a median of 140 days (IQR 67, 314) from implant. Staphylococcus aureus accounted for 15 infections (60%). Freedom from infection was 72.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.1-78.0%) at 1 year and 41.9% (95% CI 21.1-61.5%) at 3 years. In competing risks regression, abdominal DLES was not predictive of DLI (hazard ratio, HR 1.65 [95% CI 0.63, 4.29]), but body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m was (HR 2.72 [95% CI 1.25, 5.92]). In conclusion, risk of DLI is high among patients on long-term VAD support, and a nonabdominal DLES does not reduce this risk. The only predictor of DLI in this series was an elevated BMI.

Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Survival Improves With Multidisciplinary Approach

BACKGROUND

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have revolutionized the management of advanced heart failure. Device complications continue to limit survival, but enhanced management strategies have shown promise. This study compared outcomes for HeartMate II recipients before and after implementation of a multidisciplinary continuous support heart team (HTMCS) strategy.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and December 2016, 124 consecutive patients underwent primary HeartMate II implantation at our institution. In January 2015, we instituted a HTMCS approach consisting of (1) daily simultaneous cardiology/cardiac surgery/critical care/pharmacy/coordinator rounds, (2) pharmacist-directed anticoagulation, (3) speed optimization echocardiogram before discharge, (4) comprehensive device thrombosis screening and early intervention, (5) blood pressure clinic with pulsatility-adjusted goals, (6) early follow-up after discharge and individual long-term coordinator/cardiologist assignment, and (7) systematic basic/advanced/expert training and credentialing of ancillary in-hospital providers. All patients completed 1-year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics for pre-HTMCS (n = 71) and HTMCS (n = 53) groups, including age (55.8 ± 12.1 versus 52.5 ± 14.1 years, p = not significant), percentage of men (77.5% versus 71.7%, p = not significant), and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support class 3 (84.5% versus 83.0%, p = not significant), were comparable. One-year survival was 74.6% versus 100% for the pre-HTMCS and HTMCS groups, respectively (p = 0.0002). One-year survival free of serious adverse events (reoperation to replace device or disabling stroke) was 70.4% versus 84.9% for the pre-HTMCS and HTMCS groups, respectively (p = 0.059). Event per patient-year rates for disabling stroke (0.15 versus 0, p = 0.019), gastrointestinal bleeding (0.87 versus 0.51, p = 0.11), and driveline infection (0.24 versus 0.10, p = 0.18) were lower for the HTMCS group, whereas pump thrombosis requiring device exchange was higher (0.09 versus 0.18, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing a comprehensive multidisciplinary approach substantially improved outcomes for recipients of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

Biofilm formation and migration on ventricular assist device drivelines

OBJECTIVES

Driveline infections remain an important complication of ventricular assist device therapy, with biofilm formation being a major contributor. This study aimed to elucidate factors that govern biofilm formation and migration on clinically relevant ventricular assist device drivelines.

METHODS

Experimental analyses were performed on HeartWare HVAD (HeartWare International Inc, Framingham, Mass) drivelines to assess surface chemistry and biofilm formation. To mimic the driveline exit site, a drip-flow biofilm reactor assay was used. To mimic a subcutaneous tissue environment, a tunnel-based interstitial biofilm assay was developed. Clinical HVAD drivelines explanted at the time of cardiac transplantation were also examined by scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

Common causative pathogens of driveline infections were able to adhere to the smooth and velour sections of the HVAD driveline and formed robust biofilms in the drip-flow biofilm reactor; however, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans had greater biomass. Biofilm migration within the interstitial driveline tunnel was evident for Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, and C albicans, but not P aeruginosa. Biofilm formation by staphylococci was 500 to 10,000 times higher in the tunnel-based model compared with our exit site model. The 3-dimensional structure of the driveline velour and the use of silicone adhesive in driveline manufacturing were found to promote biofilm growth, and explanted patient drivelines demonstrated inadequate tissue in-growth along the entire velour with micro-gaps between velour fibers.

CONCLUSIONS

This work highlights the predilection of pathogens to different parts of the driveline, the importance of the subcutaneous tunnel to biofilm formation and migration, and the presence of micro-gaps in clinical drivelines that could facilitate invasive driveline infections.

Risk of left ventricular assist device driveline infection: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve quality of life in end-stage heart failure but can cause serious complications such as infections with driveline infection causing significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to synthesize the literature to determine variables associated with driveline infection and seek opportunities to improve nursing management of LVAD drivelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed. The evidence was synthesized using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice tools and the Chain of Infection epidemiological framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies focused on vulnerable host, portal of entry, and causative organism aspects of the Chain of Infection. Increased BMI, younger age, exposed driveline velour showed increased risk of infection and driveline dressing protocol change showed lower risk of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some risk factors for infection were identified, evidence is still limited. Nurses are uniquely positioned to improve driveline management, disrupting the chain of infection.

Surgical Implantation of Intracorporeal Devices: Perspective and Techniques

Surgical maneuvers for implantation of a continuous-flow ventricular assist device are revolutionary concepts that have been associated with a reduction in pump-related complications. With the advancement of technology, surgical implant strategy continues to evolve, incorporating less-invasive approaches into the armamentarium of the experienced surgeon.

Ventricular Assist Device Infections

This article reviews the diagnostic criteria for ventricular assist device (VAD) infection, pathogenesis, and microbiology as well as the diagnostic pathway when patients present with signs and symptoms concerning for VAD infection. Recommendations regarding infection prevention and management are reviewed as well.

Reduction of driveline infections through doubled driveline tunneling of left ventricular assist devices-5-year follow-up

Background

Driveline infection (DLI) is one of the leading causes for unplanned re-admissions of patients undergoing therapy with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). In previous studies our group was able to show that a double tunneling implantation technique could significantly reduce infection rates one year after implantation. We now report the results of the five-year-follow up of patients receiving the double tunneling technique.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed patients receiving LVAD therapy with the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) (Medtronic, Minnesota, MN, USA) LVAD. For 36 patients (group 1) the driveline was tunneled via a conventional technique. In the remaining 33 patients (group 2) the drivelines were implanted by means of a double tunneling technique. The double tunnel driveline technique involved placement of the driveline in the sheath of the rectus muscle in the umbilical direction and then subcutaneously to the left (alternatively right) upper quadrant. We retrospectively compared both groups. Primary outcome parameters were infection rate and mortality.

Results

Five years after LVAD implantation the DLI rate of patients operated by a double tunneling technique was significantly lower than in the conventional technique group [61% (n=22) group 1 vs. 30% (n=10) group 2, P=0.004]. The 5-year mortality was lower in group 2 [42% (n=15) group 1 vs. 27% (n=9) group 2] but did not achieve statistical significance (P=0.10). The days of LVAD support between the two groups were comparable (1,275.56±885.89 group 1 vs. 1,321.94±711.37 group 2). The tunnel technique itself showed to be strongly associated with the occurrence of DLI. Other elevated variables are liver disease and dilated cardiomyopathy as primary disease.

Conclusions

Double tunneling technique for driveline implantation leads to significantly lowered infection rates after 5 years of LVAD therapy and it is associated with a lower mortality.

Left ventricular assist device exchange for the treatment of HeartMate II pump thrombosis

Background

Pump thrombosis is the most severe and acute complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy and treatment remains challenging. Whilst lysis therapy is often not successful, the exchange of the occluded LVAD is currently the most applied therapeutic treatment for this event. With this study we examine the effects of minimal-invasive LVAD exchange on the rate re-thrombosis and outcomes as well as adverse events in the study group.

Methods

Between February 2004 and December 2015 more than 600 LVADs were implanted at our institution. We retrospectively studied a patient cohort of 41 patients who underwent LVAD exchange because of pump thrombosis at a single institution. Outcomes, rates of re-thrombosis and adverse events were analyzed.

Results

Between February 2004 and December 2015, 87 exchanges of LVADs were performed at a single center. In 41 cases pump thrombosis was the reason for LVAD exchange. A total of 28 patient years (10,276 days) were analyzed. Average ICU stay was 15.8±20.4 days and average in-hospital stay 38.1±37.3 days after LVAD exchange. After thirty days the survival rate was 80.5%, 75.6% after 6 months and 70.7% one year after LVAD exchange. Out of the study cohort, three patients have successfully undergone heart transplantation. Twelve patients suffered a stroke postoperatively (29%). Twelve patients needed postoperative dialysis (29%). No technical complications of the VAD were recorded in the study group. Two patients underwent successful LVAD explantation due to myocardial recovery. One year after LVAD exchange, 14 patients underwent re-exchange due to pump thrombosis (34%). Eight patients suffered from a LVAD related infection out of which two patients were treated by pump exchange. A total of 12 patients died during the complete one year follow up of this study (29%). Four patients died in the second, two in the third and one in the fourth year after LVAD exchange. The remaining 17 patients are still ongoing on the device.Conclusions: It is generally feasible to treat pump thrombosis via LVAD exchange. Yet, the exchange procedure is not without risk and the risk of re-thrombosis (34%), stroke (29%), postoperative dialysis (29%) and perioperative complications remains high.

Controversies and Challenges of Ventricular Assist Device Therapy

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy has emerged as an increasingly vital facet of the treatment algorithm for advanced heart failure. Growing experience with LVAD support has led to substantial improvements in outcomes, with 1-year survival rates approaching that of cardiac transplantation. These therapeutic refinements have engendered growing interests in the potential for expanding the clinical indications for LVAD therapy to patients with less advanced heart failure. The primary obstacles to this evolution of care center largely on the prevention and/or management of the adverse events associated with LVAD therapy along with patient preference. Many programs also face the mounting difficulty of balancing quality outcomes with the increased volume of implants. During the recently assembled Users Meeting organized by St. Jude Medical, heart failure clinicians from nearly 50 LVAD implanting centers discussed these and other challenges and controversies impacting the field. The present review summarizes the key insights gleaned from this meeting.

Wound care of the driveline exit site in patients with a ventricular assist device: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to systematically define and analyze the studies on driveline exit site care methods for patients with a ventricular assist device.

METHODS

The studies related to driveline exit site care of the patients with a ventricular assist device published in English and Turkish between 2008 and 2017 were reviewed from the international Science Direct, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the national databases. Of a total of 83 articles, a total of seven research articles which met the inclusion criteria were included in the study.

RESULTS

Findings related to the agents used in the cleaning of the driveline exit site, dressing closures, dressing change frequency, and use of driveline anchoring devices were obtained from studies included in the research. It was found that chlorhexidine solution for skin cleaning and sterile gauze sheets and transparent covering for dressing closure were the most preferred methods for the driveline exit site care. Dressing change frequency varied considerably from center to center and anchoring devices were used in all studies.

CONCLUSION

There is no gold standard method for the driveline exit site care of patients with a ventricular assist device and researches on the driveline exit site care seem to be limited. It is recommended that large-scale, randomized-controlled studies should be conducted which would provide a stronger proof of the driveline exit site care.

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Adults and Children With Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiac arrest in patients on mechanical support is a new phenomenon brought about by the increased use of this therapy in patients with end-stage heart failure. This American Heart Association scientific statement highlights the recognition and treatment of cardiovascular collapse or cardiopulmonary arrest in an adult or pediatric patient who has a ventricular assist device or total artificial heart. Specific, expert consensus recommendations are provided for the role of external chest compressions in such patients.

Current status of mechanical circulatory support for treatment of advanced end-stage heart failure: successes, shortcomings and needs

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) remains a major global burden in terms of morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in pharmacological and resynchronization device therapy, many patients worsen to end-stage HF. Although the gold-standard treatment for such patients is heart transplantation, there will always be a shortage of donor hearts. Areas covered: A left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a valuable option for these patients as a bridge measure (to recovery, to candidacy for transplant, or to transplant itself) or as destination therapy. This review describes the current indications for and complications of the most commonly implanted LVADs. In addition, we review the potential and promising new LVADs, including the HeartMate 3, MVAD, and other LVADs. Studies investigating each were identified through a combination of online database and direct extraction of studies cited in previously identified articles. Expert commentary: The goal of LVADs has been to fill the gap between patients with end-stage HF who would likely not benefit from heart transplantation and those who could benefit from a donor heart. As of now, the use of LVADs has been limited to patients with end-stage HF, but next-generation LVAD therapy may improve both survival and quality of life in less sick patients.

The future of mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) has become the main focus of heart replacement therapy for end stage heart failure patients. Advances in technology are moving towards miniaturization, biventricular support devices, complete internalization, improved hemocompatibility profiles, and responsiveness to cardiac loading conditions. This review will discuss the recent advances and investigational devices in MCS for advanced heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

The demand for both short-term and long-term durable devices for advanced heart failure is increasing. The current devices are still fraught with an unacceptably high incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic and infectious complications. New devices are on the horizon focusing on miniaturization, versatility for biventricular support, improved hemocompatibility, use of alternate energy sources, and incorporation of continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

SUMMARY

The role for MCS in advanced heart replacement therapy is steadily increasing. With the advent of newer generation devices on the horizon, the potential exists for MCS to surpass heart transplantation as the primary therapy for advanced heart failure.

Prevention and Infection Management in Mechanical Circulatory Support Device Recipients

There are currently no guidelines for the management of infection and its prevention in mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device recipients. The International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) has initiated a multidisciplinary collaboration for the creation of a consensus document to guide clinicians in infection prevention and management in MCS patients. Most medical centers use local protocols that are based on expert opinion. MCS recipients are debilitated and have some immunological dysfunction. Over the years there have been technical advancements with smaller devices and drivelines with improved durability. The pulsatile devices have been replaced with newer-generation continuous-flow devices. Patient are living longer with MCSs for bridge to transplant (BTT) and destination therapy (DT). MCS centers have improved patient management by introducing standardized driveline protocols, leading to reduced infection rates among MCS recipients.