Clinical Significance of Early Hospital Readmission in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

Racial differences in clinical characteristics and readmission burden among patients with a left ventricular-assist device

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding racial disparities in outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical characteristics and the burden of readmissions by race among patients with LVAD.

METHODS

The study population included 461 patients implanted with LVADs at the University of Rochester Medical Center, NY from May 2008 to March 2020. Patients were stratified by race as White patients (N = 396 [86%]) and Black patients (N = 65 [14%]). The Anderson-Gill recurrent regression analysis was used to assess the independent association between race and the total number of admissions after LVAD implant during an average follow-up of 2.45 ± 2.30 years.

RESULTS

Black patients displayed significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics compared to White patients, including a younger age, a lower frequency of ischemic etiology, and a higher baseline serum creatinine. Black patients had a significantly higher burden of readmissions after LVAD implantation as compared with White patients 10 versus 7 (average number of hospitalizations per patient at 5 years of follow-up, respectively) translated into a significant 39% increased risk of recurrent readmissions after multivariate adjustment (Hazard ratio 1.39, 95% CI; 1.07-1.82, p 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Black LVAD patients experience an increased burden of readmissions compared with White patients, after adjustment for baseline differences in demographics and clinical characteristics. Future studies should assess the underlying mechanisms for this increased risk including the effect of social determinants of health on the risk of readmissions in LVAD recipients.

Exercise oscillatory ventilation in patients with advanced heart failure with and without left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

Exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV), indicating pathological fluctuations on pulmonary arterial pressure, is associated with mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). Whether left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-induced ventricular unloading can reverse EOV and may prevent short-term rehospitalization has not been investigated.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-center in- and outpatient analysis of patients with (n = 20, LVAD) and without (n = 27, HF) circulatory support and reduced ejection fraction (EF, 22.8 ± 7.9%). The association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) variables and 3 months-rehospitalization (3MR) as a primary outcome was analyzed. Furthermore, CPET variables were compared regarding the presence of EOV (+/-).

RESULTS

Lower VO_2peak (11.6 ± 4.9 ml/kg/min vs. 14.4 ± 4.3 ml/kg/min, p = 0.039), lower increase of PETCO₂ (CI = 0.049-1.127; p = 0.068), and higher VE/VCO₂ (43.8 ± 9.5 vs. 38.3 ± 10.6; p = 0.069) were associated with 3MR. Flattening of O₂ pulse (CI = 0.139-2.379; p = 0.487) had no impact on 3MR. EOV was present in 59.5% (n = 28/47) of patients, without a significant difference between LVAD and HF patients (p = 0.959). Patients with HF/EOV+ demonstrated significantly lower VO_2peak compared with HF/EOV- (p = 0.039). LVAD/EOV+ displayed significantly lower EF (p = 0.004) and fewer aortic valve opening than LVAD/EOV- (p = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower VO_2peak , but not EOV, was associated with 3MR. EOV occurred at a similar rate in LVAD and HF patients, which may illustrate insufficient unloading during exercise in chronic LVAD therapy and may contribute to the limited exercise capacity following LVAD implantation. Simultaneous CPET and right heart catheterization studies are needed to elucidate whether EOV may serve as a non-invasive predictor of insufficient LV unloading necessitating LVAD reprograming.

Cognition predicts days-alive-out-of-hospital after LVAD implantation

OBJECTIVE

Cognition influences hospitalization rates for a variety of patient groups but this association has not been examined in heart failure (HF) patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We used cognition to predict days-alive-out-of-hospital (DAOH) in patients after LVAD surgery.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified 59 HF patients with cognitive assessment prior to LVAD. Cognitive tests of attention, memory, language, and visual motor speed were averaged into one score. DAOH was converted to a percentage based on total days from LVAD surgery to either heart transplant or 900 days post-LVAD. Variables significantly associated with DAOH in univariate analyses were included in a linear regression model to predict DAOH.

RESULTS

A linear regression model including LVAD type (continuous or pulsatile flow) and cognition significantly predicted DAOH (F(2,54) = 6.44, p = 0.003, R² = .19). Inspection of each variable revealed that cognition was a significant predictor in the model (β = .11, SE = .04, p = 0.007) but LVAD type was not (p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive performance assessed prior to LVAD implantation predicted how much time patients spent out of the hospital following surgery. Further studies are warranted to identify the impact of pre-LVAD cognition on post-LVAD hospitalization.

Risk factors of readmission to acute care hospital among individuals with heart failure and left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at inpatient rehabilitation setting (STROBE compliant article)

In post-acute care hospital setting, the heart failure (HF) individuals with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) have about 30% of transfer to acute care hospitals which requires readmission. There is relative increase in cost and mortality due to the readmission.The goal of this study is to identify possible risk factors at Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit (IRU) to decrease the rate of readmission to acute care hospitals.This study is retrospective study at the Inpatient Rehabilitation Unit (IRU)Twenty one individuals with HF and LVAD were admitted to IRU. We determined 2 subgroups. One is the readmission group (Readmission) and the other is the control group (Control). Readmission (n = 6) is the individuals who were transferred to acute care hospital, and Control (n = 15) is the individuals who were discharged.To compare Readmission group with Control group and evaluate demographic, laboratory, and functional outcome parameters. Main Outcome Measures are Body Mass Index (BMI), International Normalized Ratio (INR), and Functional independence measure (FIM).At admission, INR in Readmission group was 3.4 ± 1.2 and in Control group was 2.2 ± 0.5 with a statistically significant p value (P = .004) and FIM score in Readmission group was 81.2 ± 15.9 and in Control group was 96.3 ± 11.5 with a statistically significant p value (P = .023).The study showed the individuals with HF and LVAD at IRU had high INR and low FIM which may be the cause for readmission and need more attentive care. This data can help identify the factors causing readmission and help reduce the rate of readmission. Further evaluation is necessary to determine the cause for readmission.