Does the Type of Ventricular Assisted Device Influence Survival, Infection, and Rejection Rates Following Heart Transplantation?

Current status of mechanical circulatory support: a systematic review

Heart failure is a major public health problem and its management requires a significant amount of health care resources. Even with administration of the best available medical treatment, the mortality associated with the disease remains high. As therapeutical strategies for heart failure have been refined, the number of patients suffering from the disease has expanded dramatically. Although heart transplantation still represents the gold standard therapeutical approach, the implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices (MCSDs) evolved to a well-established management for this disease. The limited applicability of heart transplantation caused by a shortage of donor organs and the concurrent expand of the patient population with end-stage heart failure led to a considerable utilization of MCSDs. This paper outlines the current status of mechanical circulatory support.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in noncardiac prosthetic device recipients

BACKGROUND

Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis involves the use of ≥ 1 antimicrobial agent just prior to the time when a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure, which may induce infection, is to be performed. In the context of this article, antimicrobial agent(s) are administered to patients with ≥ 1 implanted prosthetic device in order to prevent metastatic seeding of the device(s) during bacteremia induced by a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure. Antimicrobial agents used in this context are only administered periprocedurally. Secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis of endocarditis in recipients of cardiac prosthetic materials (including valves, shunts, conduits, and patches) has been reasonably well established. However, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of other types of prosthetic devices has been the subject of much controversy, with a wide variety of recommendations being made.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this article was to conduct a narrative review of the published literature on the topic of secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis in recipients of noncardiac prosthetic devices and make evidence-based recommendations for each type of device, where possible.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for English-language articles published from 1950 to the present (January 2012). Search terms included "prophylaxis," "antibiotics," "antimicrobials," "prosthetic devices," "prosthesis-related infections," "bacteremia," the names of the individual types of prosthetic devices, and the names of the individual procedures potentially inducing bacteremia. Articles dealing with any aspect relevant to this topic were eligible for review. The bibliographies of retrieved articles were also carefully scanned to identify any articles not previously identified.

RESULTS

Based on review of the available literature, secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis is justified in only a few specific circumstances. For recipients of prosthetic vascular grafts/stents, hemodialysis arteriovenous shunts, and ventriculoatrial/ventriculovenous shunts, prophylaxis is warranted during the initial 6 months, initial 6 weeks, and at all times after implantation/revision, respectively, when dental procedures capable of inducing high-level bacteremia are planned. Prosthetic joint recipients should receive prophylaxis in the following 3 circumstances: 1) patient is to undergo dental procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus either the patient is still within 2 years of device implantation/revision or the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection; 2) patient is to undergo genitourinary tract procedure(s) capable of inducing high-level bacteremia plus the patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for high-risk bacteriuria; and 3) patient is to undergo perforating dermatologic surgery on the oral mucosa or at skin sites at increased risk for surgical site infection plus patient has ≥ 1 risk factor for hematogenous prosthetic joint infection. The data are inadequate to justify secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis for recipients of other types of prosthetic devices. On the basis of 9 surveys of prescriber behavior, it is apparent that there exists, over a wide geographic area, a wide disconnect between clinical practice and the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis guidelines issued by the professional organizations representing these prescribers. Antimicrobial agent overuse was especially problematic among orthopedic and colorectal surgeons, urologists, and family practitioners. Dentists and maxillofacial surgeons followed guidelines more closely.

CONCLUSION

Device-, procedure-, and patient characteristic-dependent factors elicited over many years have narrowed down the secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis recommendations for noncardiac prosthetic devices to a small number. Despite this, physician prescribers frequently do not follow prophylaxis guidelines established by their own professional organizations. Risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies have found that no prophylaxis is actually superior to universal prophylaxis, likely due to known antimicrobial toxicities, such as anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions and Clostridium difficile-associated disease. Much work remains in establishing and extending the scientific basis for secondary antimicrobial prophylaxis and transforming this knowledge into appropriate action by the clinician.

The impact of bridge-to-transplant ventricular assist device support on survival after cardiac transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of bridge-to-transplant ventricular assist device support on survival after cardiac transplantation.

METHODS

From January 1, 1993, to April 30, 2009, a total of 525 cardiac transplants were performed. Ventricular assist devices were placed as a bridge to transplant in 110 patients. We focused our analysis on the 2 most common causes of end-stage heart failure requiring transplantation: idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 201) and coronary artery disease (n = 213). Data including gender, age, date of transplant, cause of heart failure, prior heart transplant, placement of a ventricular assist device, type of ventricular assist device, and panel-reactive antibody sensitization were analyzed to derive Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and multivariable Cox regression models.

RESULTS

In patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy who received a ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant, survival was decreased at 1 year (P = .008) and 5 years (P = .019), but not at 10 years, posttransplant. In patients with coronary artery disease, the use of a ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant did not influence survival at 1, 5, and 10 tears posttransplant. In patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy who received a Heartmate I (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, Calif) ventricular assist device as a bridge to a cardiac transplant, elevation in the pretransplant panel-reactive antibody correlated with a decrease in long-term survival.

CONCLUSION

In patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, placement of a Heartmate I ventricular assist device as a bridge to a cardiac transplant is associated with an elevation in the pretransplant panel-reactive antibody and a decrease in 1- and 5-year survivals after cardiac transplantation.