Reduce Driveline Trauma Through Stabilization and Exit Site Management: 30 Days Feasibility Results from the Multicenter RESIST Study

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.

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.

Driveline Features as Risk Factor for Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Meta-Analysis and Experimental Tests

Background: Risk factors for driveline infection (DLI) in patients with left ventricular assist devices are multifactorial. The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between mechanical driveline features and DLI occurrence. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted that included studies reporting DLI rates at 6 months after implantation of any of three contemporary devices (HVAD with Pellethane or Carbothane driveline, HeartMate II, and HeartMate 3). Further, outer driveline diameter measurements and ex-vivo experimental three-point bending and torsion tests were performed to compare the stiffness of the four different driveline types. Results: 21 studies with 5,393 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean weighted DLI rates ranged from 7.2% (HeartMate II) to 11.9% (HeartMate 3). The HeartMate II driveline had a significantly lower maximal bending force (Loadmax) (4.52 ± 0.19 N) compared to the Carbothane HVAD (8.50 ± 0.08 N), the HeartMate 3 (11.08 ± 0.3 N), and the Pellethane HVAD driveline (15.55 ± 0.14 N) (p < 0.001). The maximal torque (Torquemax) of the HeartMate II [41.44 (12.61) mNm] and the Carbothane HVAD driveline [46.06 (3.78) mNm] were significantly lower than Torquemax of the Pellethane HVAD [46.06 (3.78) mNm] and the HeartMate 3 [95.63 (26.60) mNm] driveline (p < 0.001). The driveline of the HeartMate 3 had the largest outer diameter [6.60 (0.58) mm]. A relationship between the mean weighted DLI rate and mechanical driveline features (Torquemax) was found, as the the HeartMate II driveline had the lowest Torquemax and lowest DLI rate, whereas the HeartMate 3 driveline had the highest Torquemax and highest DLI rate. Conclusions: Device-specific mechanical driveline features are an additional modifiable risk factor for DLI and may influence clinical outcomes of LVAD patients.

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.

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.

Quality Over Quantity: Standardization of Pediatric HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device Dressing Changes

Pediatric patients are unique both in their diagnosis and clinical presentation before implantation of a ventricular assist device (VAD) and in their driveline site characteristics post-implant. There is limited evidence in scholarly literature that describes complications of pediatric VAD driveline sites or approaches by which to manage them. The Cardiac Center at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) follows a standard of care for HeartWare VAD (HVAD) dressing changes in the inpatient setting with the goal of transitioning patients to weekly dressing changes by the time they are discharged to home. As a patient with an HVAD nears discharge, members of an interprofessional team collaborate with insurance providers and home care agencies to procure the appropriate supplies needed at home. Individualized plans of care are necessary for patients who are unable to transition to weekly dressings; however, customized products (such as silicone foam border dressings and antimicrobial agents) may be challenging to supply as single items from home care agencies. Between March 2014 and June 2017, 15 patients underwent HVAD implantation, and eight (53%) were discharged home. Ten patients (67%) were able to transition to weekly dressing changes. Individualized plans of care for driveline site management were required for six (40%) patients with persistent drainage. Three patients (20%) experienced a driveline site infection. This article describes how a quality improvement (QI) initiative using rapid-cycle improvement methodology was executed to standardize HVAD dressing changes in our pediatric population.

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.

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.