Comparison of Outcomes and Mortality in Patients Having Left Ventricular Assist Device Implanted Early -vs- Late After Diagnosis of Cardiomyopathy

LVAD implantation in patients with a recently diagnosed cardiomyopathy has been poorly investigated. This work aims at describing the characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving a LVAD within 30 days following the diagnosis of cardiomyopathy. Patients from the ASSIST-ICD study was divided into recently and remotely diagnosed cardiomyopathy based on the time from initial diagnosis of cardiomyopathy to LVAD implantation using the cut point of 30 days. The primary end point of the study was all-cause mortality at 30-day and during follow-up. A total of 652 patients were included and followed during a median time of 9.1 (2.5 to 22.1) months. In this population, 117 (17.9%) had a recently diagnosed cardiomyopathy and had LVAD implantation after a median time of 15.0 (9.0 to 24.0) days following the diagnosis. This group of patients was significantly younger, with more ischemic cardiomyopathy, more sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) events at the time of the diagnosis and were more likely to receive temporary mechanical support before LVAD compared with the remotely diagnosed group. Postoperative in-hospital survival was similar in groups, but recently diagnosed patients had a better long-term survival after hospital discharge. SCA before LVAD and any cardiac surgery combined with LVAD implantation were identified as 2 independent predictors of postoperative mortality in recently diagnosed patients. In conclusion, rescue LVAD implantation for recently diagnosed severe cardiomyopathy is common in clinical practice. Such patients experience a relatively low postoperative mortality and have a better long-term survival compared with remotely diagnosed patients.

Prospective Comparison of a Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Device and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Following Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background Cardiogenic shock ( CS ) following acute myocardial infarction ( AMI ) portends a poor prognosis. Both venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( VA - ECMO ) and a percutaneous ventricular assist device ( pVAD ) provide hemodynamic support for patients with CS, but little is known about the best device for this population. We sought to compare outcomes of AMI patients treated with these devices. Methods and Results Consecutive patients with CS following AMI from April 2015 to March 2017 were enrolled prospectively if they received either device for AMI -related CS . If patients received both devices, they were analyzed according to the first used. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. In total, 51 patients received VA - ECMO or pVAD following AMI ; 20 received VA - ECMO, and 31 received pVAD . The mean age was 62.1±10.1 years, and 39 (76.5%) were men. Twenty-four (47.1%) patients were ultimately supported by both devices simultaneously (20 pVAD -first, 4 VA - ECMO -first). Patients treated with pVAD or VA - ECMO were similar in baseline characteristics at initial device insertion except that the latter were on more vasopressors and were more likely to have an intra-aortic balloon pump. Seventeen (33.3%) had recent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mean lactate was 4.86±3.96 mmol/L, and mean cardiac index was 1.70±0.42 L/min per m². Of the 28 (54.9%) patients surviving to discharge, 11 had received VA - ECMO first and 17 had pVAD first ( P=0.99). Survival at 1 and 2 years did not differ significantly between device groups ( P=0.42). Conclusions Following AMI -related CS , pVAD - and VA - ECMO -treated patients had similar outcomes. The use of both devices simultaneously was common, with almost half of patients in persistent CS after first device deployment.

Selective implantation of durable left ventricular assist devices as primary therapy for refractory cardiogenic shock

OBJECTIVE

Surgical therapy for refractory primary cardiogenic shock is largely based on emergent placement of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or short-term ventricular assist devices. We have adopted a strategy of routine implantation of durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as initial therapy for refractory cardiogenic shock, in patients who are potential candidates for heart transplantation, and report our experience.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 43 consecutive patients with refractory shock caused by acute myocardial infarction (n = 21) or acute decompensated heart failure (n = 22) who were treated with primary implantation of a durable LVAD in a single institution.

RESULTS

All patients received durable LVAD (axial flow, n = 37; centrifugal, n = 4; pulsatile, n = 2), with concurrent placement of right ventricular assist device (RVAD) in 5 patients (12%). One patient had delayed RVAD implantation. Mean operative time was 362 minutes and mean cardiopulmonary bypass time was 94 minutes. Twenty patients underwent concurrent cardiac procedures. Major early adverse events included operative mortality 14% (6/43), reoperation for bleeding 7% (3/43), and stroke 4.7% (2/43). Median time on mechanical ventilation was 3.5 days, ICU stay 9 days, and hospital stay 25 days. Kaplan-Meier survival was 82.7 ± 6.0% at 6 months and 73.9 ± 8.0% at 12 months. Using competing analysis, the cumulative incidence of transplantation was 10.3 ± 5.0% at 6 months and 30.8 ± 7.9% at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data challenge the notion that patients in refractory cardiogenic shock are best served by an initial period of stabilization with temporary devices. Primary implantation of durable LVADs in cardiogenic shock can yield good midterm outcomes and may have potential benefits.

Cost-utility analysis of direct ventricular assist device vs double bridges to heart transplantation in patients with refractory heart failure

OBJECT

This study compared the cost-utility of direct ventricular assist device (VAD) vs double bridges, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) before VAD, to heart transplantation in patients with refractory heart failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From a health payer perspective, a Markov model was developed. The cycle length was 1 month, and the time horizon was a lifetime. Probabilities and direct cost data were calculated from a nationwide claim database. Utility inputs were adopted from published sources. The utility was expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Both costs and utility were discounted by an annual rate of 3%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the stability of the model.

RESULTS

The direct VAD group had less lifetime costs (USD 95 910 vs USD 129 516) but higher lifetime QALYs than the double bridges group (1.73 vs 0.89). The sensitivity analysis revealed that the direct VAD group consistently had lower cost and higher QALYs during all variations in model parameters. The probability that direct VAD was cost-effective exceeded 75% at any levels of willing-to-pay.

CONCLUSION

From a health insurance payer perspective, direct VAD bridge to heart transplantation appeared to be more cost-effective than double bridges in patients with refractory heart failure.

Doubling survival and improving clinical outcomes using a left ventricular assist device instead of chest compressions for resuscitation after prolonged cardiac arrest: a large animal study

Introduction

Despite improvements in pre-hospital and post-arrest critical care, sudden cardiac arrest (CA) remains one of the leading causes of death. Improving circulation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) may improve survival rates and long-term clinical outcomes after CA.

Methods

In a porcine model, we compared standard CPR (sCPR; n =10) with CPR using an intravascular cardiac assist device without additional chest compressions (iCPR; n =10) following 10 minutes of electrically induced ventricular fibrillation (VF). In a separate crossover experiment, 10 additional pigs were subjected to 10 minutes of VF and 6 minutes of sCPR; the iCPR device was then implanted if a return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was not achieved using sCPR. Animals were evaluated in respect to intra- and post-arrest hemodynamics, survival, functional outcome and cerebral and myocardial lesions following CPR. We hypothesized that iCPR would result in more frequent ROSC and better functional recovery than sCPR.

Results

iCPR produced a mean flow of 1.36 ± 0.02 L/min, leading to significantly higher coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) values during the early period of CPR (22 ± 10 mmHg vs. 9 ± 5 mmHg, P ≤0.01, 1 minute after start of CPR; 20 ± 11 mmHg vs. 10 ± 7 mmHg, P =0.03, 2 minutes after start of CPR), resulting in high ROSC rates (100% in iCPR vs. 50% in sCPR animals; P =0.03). iCPR animals showed significantly lower serum S100 levels at 10 and 30 minutes following ROSC (3.5 ± 0.6 ng/ml vs. 7.4 ± 3.0 ng/ml 30 minutes after ROSC; P ≤0.01), as well as superior clinical outcomes based on overall performance categories (2.9 ± 1.0 vs. 4.6 ± 0.8 on day 1; P ≤0.01). In crossover experiments, 80% of animals required treatment with iCPR after failed sCPR. Notably, ROSC was still achieved in six of the remaining eight animals (75%) after a total of 22.8 ± 5.1 minutes of ischemia.

Conclusions

In a model of prolonged cardiac arrest, the use of iCPR instead of sCPR improved CPP and doubled ROSC rates, translating into improved clinical outcomes.