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

When all Else Fails, Try This: The HeartMate III Left Ventricle Assist Device

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease. It is estimated that more than 250,000 patients suffer from advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction refractory to medical therapy. With limited donor pool for heart transplant, continue flow left ventricle assist device (LVAD) is a lifesaving treatment option for patients with advanced HF. This review will provide an update on indications, contraindications, and associated adverse events for LVAD support with a summary of the current outcomes data.

The Predictive Role of Metabolic Volume Segmentation Compared to Semiquantitative PET Parameters in Diagnosis of LVAD Infection using [18F]FDG Imaging

PURPOSE

Left ventricular assisting device (LVAD) is a vital mechanical circulatory assist device for patients with end-stage heart disease, serving as either a bridge to transplantation or palliative destination therapy. Yet device infection represents a major lethal complication, warranting a multi-step, complex therapy approach including an urgent device exchange or heart transplantation. Still, timely diagnosis of site and extent of VAD-specific infection for a proper therapy planning poses challenges in regular clinical care. This single-center, retrospective study aimed to evaluate the impact of volumetric PET parameters with different thresholding compared to semiquantitative PET parameters for accurate diagnosis of VAD-specific infection.

PROCEDURES

Seventeen patients (1 female, 16 males; mean age 57 ± 11 years) underwent [18F]FDG imaging for suspected VAD-specific infection between April 2013 and October 2023. Various metabolic and volumetric PET parameters with different thresholding were collected for specific LVAD components including driveline entry point, subcutaneous driveline, pump pocket, inner cannula and outflow tract. Microbiology and clinical follow-up were used as the final diagnosis standard.

RESULTS

Nine of eleven patients with VAD-specific infection underwent urgent heart transplantation, and one had a surgical revision of LVAD. Two patients had non-VAD specific infections, and two had non-VAD related infections. Metabolic burden determination using a fixed absolute threshold provided the best outcome compared to relative thresholding or other metabolic SUV parameters. The total metabolic tumor volume (MTV) cutoff value was 9.3 cm3, and the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC were 90.0%, 71.43%, 82.5%, and 0.814 (95% CI 0.555-0.958), respectively. The total lesion glycolysis (TLG) was 30.6, and the corresponding sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC were 90.0%, 71.4%, 82.5%, and 0.829 (95% CI 0.571-0.964), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Volumetric PET parameters with fixed absolute thresholding appear to be a valuable auxiliary tool in the evaluation of [18F]FDG imaging to enhance the diagnostic accuracy of VAD-specific infection.

Cardiac Arrest in Special Populations

Best practices in cardiac arrest depend on continuous high-quality chest compressions, appropriate ventilatory management, early defibrillation of shockable rhythms, and identification and treatment of reversible causes. Although most patients can be treated according to highly vetted treatment guidelines, some special situations in cardiac arrest arise where additional skills and preparation can improve outcomes. Situations covered in this section involve cardiac arrest in context of electrical injuries, asthma, allergic reactions, pregnancy, trauma, electrolyte imbalances, toxic exposures, hypothermia, drowning, pulmonary embolism, and left ventricular assist devices.

When all Else Fails, Try This: The HeartMate III Left Ventricle Assist Device

Heart failure (HF) is a progressive disease. It is estimated that more than 250,000 patients suffer from advanced HF with reduced ejection fraction refractory to medical therapy. With limited donor pool for heart transplant, continue flow left ventricle assist device (LVAD) is a lifesaving treatment option for patients with advanced HF. This review will provide an update on indications, contraindications, and associated adverse events for LVAD support with a summary of the current outcomes data.

Cardiac Arrest in Special Populations

Best practices in cardiac arrest depend on continuous high-quality chest compressions, appropriate ventilatory management, early defibrillation of shockable rhythms, and identification and treatment of reversible causes. Although most patients can be treated according to highly vetted treatment guidelines, some special situations in cardiac arrest arise where additional skills and preparation can improve outcomes. Situations covered in this section involve cardiac arrest in context of electrical injuries, asthma, allergic reactions, pregnancy, trauma, electrolyte imbalances, toxic exposures, hypothermia, drowning, pulmonary embolism, and left ventricular assist devices.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Primer For the General Cardiologist

Durable implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been shown to improve survival and quality of life for patients with stage D heart failure. Even though LVADs remain underused overall, the number of patients with heart failure supported with LVADs is steadily increasing. Therefore, general cardiologists will increasingly encounter these patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the field of durable LVADs. We discuss which patients should be referred for consideration of advanced heart failure therapies. We summarize the basic principles of LVAD care, including medical and surgical considerations. We also discuss the common complications associated with LVAD therapy, including bleeding, infections, thrombotic issues, and neurologic events. Our goal is to provide a primer for the general cardiologist in the recognition of patients who could benefit from LVADs and in the principles of managing patients with LVAD. Our hope is to "demystify" LVADs for the general cardiologist.

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.

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.

Does the distance between residency and implanting center affect the outcome of patients supported by left ventricular assist devices? A multicenter Italian study on radial mechanically assisted circulatory support (MIRAMACS) analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with LVAD require continuous monitoring and care, and since Implanting Centers (ICs) are more experienced in managing LVAD patients than other healthcare facilities, the distance between patient residency and IC could negatively affect the outcomes.

METHODS

Data of patients discharged after receiving an LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2021 collected from the MIRAMACS database were retrospectively analyzed. The population was divided into two groups: A (n = 175) and B (n = 141), according to the distance between patient residency and IC ≤ or >90 miles. The primary endpoint was freedom from Adverse Events (AEs), a composite outcome composed of death, cerebrovascular accident, hospital admission because of GI bleeding, infection, pump thrombosis, and right ventricular failure. Secondary endpoints were incidences of mortality and complications. All patients were followed-up regularly, according to participating center protocols.

RESULTS

Baseline clinical characteristics and indications for LVAD did not differ between the two groups. The mean duration of support was 25.5 ± 21 months for Group A and 25.7 ± 20 months for Group B (p = 0.79). At 3 years, freedom from AEs was similar between Group A and Group B (p = 0.36), and there were no differences in rates of mortality and LVAD-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Distance from the IC does not represent a barrier to successful outcomes as long as regular and continuous follow-up is provided.

Trends and Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: JACC Focus Seminar

As the prevalence of advanced heart failure continues to rise, treatment strategies for select patients include heart transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, both of which improve quality of life and extend survival. Recently, the HeartMate 3 has been incorporated into clinical practice, the United Network for Organ Sharing donor heart allocation system was revised, and the management of LVAD-related complications has evolved. Contemporary LVAD recipients have greater preoperative illness severity, but survival is higher and adverse event rates are lower compared with prior eras. This is driven by advances in device design, patient selection, surgical techniques, and long-term management. However, bleeding, infection, neurologic events, and right ventricular failure continue to limit broader implementation of LVAD support. Ongoing efforts to optimize management of patients implanted with current devices and parallel development of next-generation devices are likely to further improve outcomes for patients with advanced heart failure.

Impact of Age on Emergency Resource Utilization and Outcomes in Pediatric and Young Adult Patients Supported with a Ventricular Assist Device

There are minimal data describing outcomes in ambulatory pediatric and young adult ventricular assist device (VAD)-supported patient populations. We performed a retrospective analysis of encounter-level data from 2006 to 2017 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) to compare emergency department (ED) resource utilization and outcomes for pediatric (≤18 years, n = 494) to young adult (19-29 years, n = 2,074) VAD-supported patient encounters. Pediatric encounters were more likely to have a history of congenital heart disease (11.3% vs. 4.8%). However, Pediatric encounters had lower admission/transfer rates (37.8% vs. 57.8%) and median charges ($3,334 (IQR $1,473-$19,818) vs. $13,673 ($3,331-$45,884)) (all p < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression modeling revealed that age itself was not a predictor of admission, instead high acuity primary diagnoses and medical complexity were: (adjusted odds ratio; 95% confidence intervals): cardiac (3.0; 1.6-5.4), infection (3.4; 1.7-6.5), bleeding (3.9; 1.7-8.8), device complication (7.2; 2.7-18.9), and ≥1 chronic comorbidity (4.1; 2.5-6.7). In this largest study to date describing ED resource use and outcomes for pediatric and young adult VAD-supported patients, we found that, rather than age, high acuity presentations and comorbidities were primary drivers of clinical outcomes. Thus, reducing morbidity in this population should target comorbidities and early recognition of VAD-related complications.

An Increasing Burden of Disease: Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices From 2010 to 2017

Background With a growing population of patients supported by ventricular assist devices (VADs) and the improvement in survival of this patient population, understanding the healthcare system burden is critical to improving outcomes. Thus, we sought to examine national estimates of VAD-related emergency department (ED) visits and characterize their demographic, clinical, and outcomes profile. Additionally, we tested the hypotheses that resource use increased and mortality improved over time. Methods and Results This retrospective database analysis uses encounter-level data from the 2010 to 2017 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. The primary outcome was mortality. From 2010 to 2017, >880 million ED visits were evaluated, with 44 042 VAD-related ED visits identified. The annual mean visits were 5505 (SD 4258), but increased 16-fold from 2010 to 2017 (824 versus 13 155). VAD-related ED visits frequently resulted in admission (72%) and/or death (3.0%). Median inflation-adjusted charges were $25 679 (interquartile range, $7450, $63 119) per encounter. The most common primary diagnoses were cardiac (22%), and almost 30% of encounters were because of bleeding, stroke, or device complications. From 2010 to 2017, admission and mortality decreased from 82% to 71% and 3.4% to 2.4%, respectively (P for trends <0.001, both). Conclusions We present the first study using national-level data to characterize the growing ED resource use and financial burden of patients supported by VAD. During the past decade, admission and mortality rates decreased but remain substantial; in 2017 ≈1 in every 40 VAD ED encounters resulted in death, making it critical that clinical decision-making be optimized for patients with VAD to maximize good outcomes.

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.

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: Management in the emergency department

With an increasing number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) being placed every year, emergency clinicians are increasingly likely to encounter them in their practice. Patients may present to the emergency department (ED) with significant hemodynamic perturbations with an LVAD and it is imperative that emergency clinicians are able to assess and treat conditions contributing to low cardiac output states. This review describes the important aspects of the third generation of LVADs and their complications as well as common management approaches for the emergency physician.