Delayed Sternal Closure After Continuous Flow Left Ventricle Assist Device Implantation: Analysis of Risk Factors and Impact on Outcomes and Costs

Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Inverse Propensity Score-Weighted Analysis

We compare the effect of intraoperative administration of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) on major bleeding, transfusions, and complications. Out of 138 patients undergoing left ventricle assist device (LVAD) implantation, 32 received PCCs as first-line hemostatic agents and 102 FFP (standard group). The crude treatment estimates indicated that, compared with the standard group, the PCC group required more FFP units (odds ratio [OR]: 4.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.58-11; p = 0.004) intraoperatively, whereas a greater number of patients received FFP at 24 hours (OR: 3.01, 95% CI: 1.19-7.59; p = 0.021) and less packed red blood cells (RBC) at 48 hours (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.01-1.21; p = 0.046). After the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted analyses, in the PCC group there was still a higher number of patients who required FFP (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.02-8.25; p = 0.048) or RBC (OR: 6.23, 95% CI: 1.67-23.14; p = 0.007] at 24 hours and RBC at 48 hours (OR: 3.09, 95% CI: 0.89-10.76; p = 0.007). Adverse events and survival were similar before and after the ITPW adjustment. In conclusion, the PCCs, although relatively safe with respect to thrombotic events, were not associated with a reduction of major bleeding and blood product transfusions.

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Extended systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in ventricular assist device recipients, an infectious disease perspective

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether mediastinitis/deep sternal wound infection (Med/DSWI) is more common in ventricular assist device (VAD) with delayed sternal closure (DSC) compared to VAD with primary sternal closure (PSC).

METHODS

A literature search was done over the last four decades for studies that addressed this comparison.

RESULTS

Two studies met our inclusion criteria, and their results are contradictory. The first study compared 184 VAD recipients with PSC to 180 VAD recipients with DSC. There was no difference in VAD-related infections between DSC and PSC (15% vs. 16%, respectively; odds ratio = 0.965, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.525-1.635). The second study compared 464 VAD recipients with PSC to 94 VAD recipients with DSC. The rate of surgical site infection was higher in the DSC patients (12.5% vs. 1.4%, respectively; odds ratio = 10.1; 95% CI = 3.8-27.0). DSC was identified as an independent risk factor for postoperative mortality, but no detailed infection information was given.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence of the association between DSC, compared to PSC, and Med/DSWI. Therefore, DSC is not an absolute indication for extended systemic antibiotic prophylaxis. The decision to extend the duration of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis should be made on a case-by-case basis, in collaboration with an infectious disease specialist.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Issues and Challenges

BACKGROUND

Advanced heart failure (HF) can be treated conservatively or aggressively, with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplant (HT) being the most aggressive strategies.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this review was to identify, describe, critique and summarize published cost-effectiveness analyses on LVADs for adults with HF.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed and ProQuest DIALOG databases to identify English-language publications from 2006 to 2017 describing cost-effectiveness analyses of LVADs and reviewed them against inclusion criteria. Those that met criteria were obtained for full-text review and abstracted if they continued to meet study requirements.

RESULTS

A total of 12 cost-effectiveness studies (13 articles) were identified, all of which described models; they were almost evenly split between those examining LVADs as destination therapy (DT) or as bridge to transplant (BTT). Studies were Markov or semi-Markov models with one- or three-month cycles that followed patients until death. Inputs came from a variety of sources, with the REMATCH trial and INTERMACS registry common clinical data sources, although some publications also used data from studies at their own institutions. Costs were derived from standard sources in many studies but from individual hospital data in some. Inputs for health utilities, which were used in 11 of 12 studies, were generally derived from two studies. None of the studies reported a societal perspective, that is, included non-medical costs such as caregiving.

CONCLUSIONS

No study found LVADs to be cost effective for DT or BTT with base case assumptions, although incremental cost-effectiveness ratios met thresholds for cost effectiveness in some probabilistic analyses. With constant improvements in LVADs and expanding indications, understanding and re-evaluating the cost effectiveness of their use will be critical to making treatment decisions.

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.

Delayed sternal closure does not reduce complications associated with coagulopathy and right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation

Delayed sternal closure (DSC) is occasionally adopted after implantation of left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Recent studies suggest that DSC be used for high risk group of patients with coagulopathy, hemodynamic instability or right ventricular failure. However, whether DSC is efficacious for bleeding complication or right ventricular failure is not known. This study is single center analysis of 52 patients, who underwent LVAD implantation. Of those 52 patients, 40 consecutive patients underwent DSC routinely. The sternum was left open with vacuum assist device after implantation of LVAD. Perioperative outcome of the patients who underwent routine DSC were compared with 12 patients who had immediate sternal closure (IC). Mean Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) level of IC group and DSC group were 2.7 and 2.6, respectively. Postoperative bleeding (643 vs. 1469 ml, p < 0.001), duration of inotropic support (109 vs. 172 h, p = 0.034), and time to extubation (26 vs. 52 h, p = 0.005) were significantly increased in DSC group. Length of ICU stay (14 vs. 15 days, p = 0.234) and hospital stay (28 vs. 20 days, p = 0.145) were similar. Incidence of right ventricular failure and tamponade were similar in the two groups. Routine DSC after implantation of an LVAD did not prove to be beneficial in reducing complications associated with coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability including cardiac tamponade or right ventricular failure. We suggest that DSC be selectively applied for patients undergoing LVAD implant.