Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients Supported With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

How to Select Patients for Left Ventricular Assist Devices? A Guide for Clinical Practice

In recent years, a significant improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has occurred, and the continuous-flow devices currently used can last more than 10 years in a patient. Current studies report that the 5-year survival rate after LVAD implantation approaches that after a heart transplant. However, the outcome is influenced by the correct selection of the patients, as well as the choice of the optimal time for implantation. This review summarizes the indications, the red flags for prompt initiation of LVAD evaluation, and the principles for appropriate patient screening.

Diabetes mellitus impact on left ventricular assist device outcomes in heart failure patients: National Inpatient Sample study

Aim: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a recognized risk factor for heart failure (HF), increasing the likelihood of requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Objective: This retrospective cohort study aims to assess the impact of DM on LVAD patients, focusing on in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome. Methods: Utilizing the National Inpatient Sample administrative database, data from 11,506 adult HF patients who underwent LVAD implantation were analyzed. Results: Of the patients, 44.28% had diabetes. Adjusting for various factors, diabetic patients exhibited shorter hospital stays, lower admission costs and similar in-hospital mortality rates compared with non-diabetic patients. Conclusion: These findings enhance our understanding of the risks and benefits of LVAD therapy in patients with refractory HF and DM.

Hyponatremia Is a Powerful Predictor of Poor Prognosis in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

Serum sodium is an established prognostic marker in heart failure (HF) patients and is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We sought to study the prognostic value of serum sodium in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients and whether hyponatremia reflects worsening HF or an alternative mechanism. We identified HF patients that underwent LVAD implantation between 2008 and 2019. Hyponatremia was defined as Na ≤134 mEq/L at 3 months after implantation. We assessed for differences in hyponatremia before and after LVAD implantation. We also evaluated the association of hyponatremia with all-cause mortality and recurrent HF hospitalizations. There were 342 eligible LVAD patients with a sodium value at 3 months. Among them, there was a significant improvement in serum sodium after LVAD implantation compared to preoperatively (137.2 vs. 134.7 mEq/L, P < 0.0001). Patients with and without hyponatremia had no significant differences in echocardiographic and hemodynamic measurements. In a multivariate analysis, hyponatremia was associated with a markedly increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 3.69, 95% CI, 1.93-7.05, P < 0.001) when accounting for age, gender, co-morbidities, use of loop diuretics, and B-type natriuretic peptide levels. Hyponatremia was also significantly associated with recurrent HF hospitalizations (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.02-4.37, P = 0.04). Hyponatremia in LVAD patients is associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality and recurrent HF hospitalizations. Hyponatremia may be a marker of ongoing neurohormonal activation that is more sensitive than other lab values, echocardiography parameters, and hemodynamic measurements.

Effect of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device - Analysis of Data From a Japanese National Database

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of preoperative diabetes on all-cause mortality and major postoperative complications among patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) by using data from a national database.Methods and Results: The 545 study patients who underwent primary HeartMateII implantation between 2013 and 2019 were divided into 2 groups according to their diabetes mellitus (DM) status; patients with DM (n=116) and patients without DM (n=429). First, the on-device survival and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. Second, after adjusting for patients' backgrounds, the change of laboratory data in the 2 groups were compared. Overall, on-device survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was almost equivalent between the 2 groups; it was 95%, 94%, and 91% in patients without DM, and 93%, 91%m and 91% in patients with DM (P=0.468) The incidence of adverse events was similar between 2 groups of patients, except for driveline exit site infection in the adjusted cohort. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed younger age (HR: 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-0.99, P=0.001) and presence of DM (HR: 1.83 (95% CI: 1.14-2.88), P=0.016) as significant predictors of driveline infection. Laboratory findings revealed no differences between groups throughout the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical results after LVAD implantation in DM patients were comparable with those in non-DM patients, except for the driveline exit site infection.

Infectious complications following contemporary left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate the source of infectious complications following contemporary left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and to determine the impact of infections on patient outcomes.

METHODS

All patients who underwent centrifugal LVAD implantation between 2014 and 2020 at a single center were retrospectively reviewed. Postimplant infections were categorized as VAD-specific, VAD-related, or non-VAD according to previously published definitions. Postoperative survival and freedom from readmission were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the risk factors for postoperative infectious complications.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients underwent centrifugal LVAD implantation (70 HeartMate 3, 142 HeartWare HVAD) during the study period. One hundred and two patients (48.1%) developed an infection, including 34 VAD-specific, 11 VAD-related, and 57 non-VAD. Staphylococcus species were the most common source of postoperative infection (n = 57, 33.7%). In multivariable analysis, diabetes significantly impacted overall postoperative infection rate. At 12 and 24 months, respectively, Kaplan-Meier survival was 81.1% and 61.6% in the infection group and 83.4% and 78.1% in the noninfection group (p = 0.006). Within the total cohort, 12- and 24-month freedom from infection were 46.2% and 31.9%, respectively. Patients with infectious complication had significantly lower rate of transplantation (16.4% vs. 43.6%; p < 0.001), increased overall mortality (46.3% vs. 17.3%, p < 0.001), and increased rates of noncardiac readmission (58.2% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Infections are common following contemporary LVAD implantation and are most commonly non-VAD related. Patients with postoperative infectious complications have significantly reduced rates of transplantation, survival, and freedom from noncardiac readmission.

Diabetes Mellitus in Advanced Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased rates of mortality in patients with less severe (stage C) heart failure (HF). The prevalence of diabetes and its complications in advanced (stage D) HF and their contributions to mortality risk are unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study of all adult residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, who had advanced HF between 2007 and 2017. Patients with diabetes were identified by using the criteria of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set. Diabetes complications were captured by using the Diabetes Complications Severity Index. Of 936 patients with advanced HF, 338 (36.1%) had diabetes. Overall, median survival time after development of advanced HF was 13.1 (3.9-33.1) months; mortality did not vary by diabetes status (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.90-1.25; P = 0.45) or by glycated hemoglobin levels in those with diabetes (aHR 1.01 per 1% increase, 95% CI 0.93-1.10; P = 0.82). However, patients with diabetes and 4 (aHR 1.24, 95% CI 0.92-1.67) or 5-7 (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03) diabetes complications were at increased risk of mortality compared to those with ≤ 3 complications.

CONCLUSIONS

More than one-third of patients with advanced HF have diabetes. In advanced HF, overall prognosis is poor, but we found no evidence that diabetes is associated with a significantly higher mortality risk.

The impact of diabetes on short-, intermediate- and long-term mortality following left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a frequent comorbidity among patients suffering from advanced heart failure necessitating a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of type 2 DM on early and long-term outcomes of patients following an LVAD implant.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study in a large tertiary care centre in Israel. All data of patients who underwent a continuous flow LVAD implant between 2006 and 2020 were extracted from our departmental database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (patients without diabetes) and group II (patients with diabetes). We compared short-term (30-day and 3-month) mortality, intermediate-term (1- and 3-year) mortality and long-term (5 year) mortality between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The study population included 154 patients. Group I (patients without diabetes) comprised 88 patients and group II (patients with diabetes) comprised 66 patients. The mean follow-up duration was 38.2 ± 30.3 months. Short- and intermediate-term mortality (30 days, 1 year and 3 years) was higher in the group with DM compared with the group without DM but did not reach any statistically significant difference: 16.1% vs 9.8% (P = 0.312), 24.2% vs 17.3% (P = 0.399) and 30.6% vs 21.9% (P = 0.127) respectively. Long-term 5-year mortality was significantly higher in the group with DM compared to the group without: 38.7% vs 24.4% (P = 0.038). Furthermore, predictors of long-term mortality included diabetes (hazard ratio 2.09, confidence interval 1.34-2.84, P = 0.004), as demonstrated by regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes and those without diabetes have similar 30-day and short- and intermediate-term mortality rates. The mortality risk of diabetic patients begins to increase 3 years after an LVAD implant. Diabetes is an independent predictor of long-term, 5-year mortality after an LVAD implant.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethical Committee of Sheba Medical Centre, Israel, on 2 December 2014, Protocol 4257.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)‐supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD‐ supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient‐device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD‐supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non‐cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end‐of‐life approaches are described.

Contemporary Management of Heart Failure in Patients With Diabetes

Both heart failure and diabetes are increasing in prevalence in Western communities. The interrelationship between these two conditions is well known, with conventional heart failure therapies including several newer drug classes providing benefit to subjects with diabetes. Furthermore, several of the more recently introduced medications for type 2 diabetes have resulted in significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality benefits with a marked improvement in heart failure symptoms and hospital presentations as well as deaths. This review outlines current therapies used to treat patients with or at risk for heart failure and their particular role in subjects with diabetes. Newer therapies, including certain glucose-lowering medications and their benefits in treating heart failure patients with and without diabetes, are also discussed. Finally, heart failure is also observed in long-duration, aging patients with type 1 diabetes, but this clinical issue has not been as extensively explored as in patients with type 2 diabetes and warrants further clinical investigation.

A review of the management of patients with advanced heart failure in the intensive care unit

Despite progress in the medical and device therapy for heart failure (HF), the prognosis for those with advanced HF remains poor. Acute heart failure (AcHF) is the rapid development of, or worsening of symptoms and signs of HF typically leading to hospitalization. Whilst many HF decompensations are managed at a ward-based level, a proportion of patients require higher acuity care in the intensive care unit (ICU). Admission to ICU is associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality, and in those who fail to respond to standard supportive and medical therapy, a proportion maybe suitable for mechanical circulatory support (MCS). The optimal pre-operative management of advanced HF patients awaiting durable MCS or cardiac transplantation (CTx) is vital in improving both short and longer-term outcomes. This review will summarize the clinical assessment, hemodynamic profiling and management of the patient with AcHF in the ICU. The general principles of pre-surgical optimization encompassing individual systems (the kidneys, the liver, blood and glycemic control) will be discussed. Other factors impacting upon post-operative outcomes including nutrition and sarcopenia and pre-surgical skin decolonization have been included. Issues specific to durable MCS including the assessment of the right ventricle and strategies for optimization will also be discussed.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Risk for Adverse Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are known to have reduced life expectancy and be at increased risk for multiple morbidities including serious infection. However, published data on DM outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are sparse, inconsistent and individual studies are small with limited power. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival and adverse events post-LVAD in DM versus non-DM (NDM) patients. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes in DM and NDM patients who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure. Results were reported as random effect risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We identified 5 retrospective cohort studies, at low risk of bias, reporting on 1,351 patients (n = 488 DM). There was increased 30-day mortality (RR 1.57 [1.00, 2.47]; p = 0.05; I² = 0%) among DM versus NDM. The DM and NDM groups did not differ significantly in terms of 1-year mortality (RR 1.15 [0.98, 1.35]; p = 0.08; I² = 39%), device-related infection (RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.19]; p = 0.88; I² = 0%), ischemic stroke (RR 1.29 [0.91, 1.83]; p = 0.69; I² = 0%), hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.10 [0.42, 2.83]; p = 0.85; I² = 69%), or bleeding (RR 1.06 [0.80, 1.40]; p = 0.70; I² = 27%). After LVAD implantation, patients with DM, versus patients without, have a modestly elevated 30-day mortality rate. However, 1-year mortality and morbidity did not differ.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America: This statement does not represent an update of the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA heart failure guideline update

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure, A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Heart Failure Society of America

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Clinical Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Short-Term Outcomes andIn-Hospital Mortality of Cardiac Mechanical Support with Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD): A Retrospective Study from a National Database

BACKGROUND

Cardiac support with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) is a growing field. LVAD are increasingly used for patients with advanced congestive heart failure. Multiple studies have evaluated the outcomes of cardiac support with LVAD in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM), yet we still have conflicting results. This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of diabetes mellitus on patients undergoing cardiac support with LVAD.

METHODS

Diabetic patients who underwent mechanical support with LVAD between 2011 and 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). The primary outcome was the effect of diabetes mellitus on inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were the impact of diabetes on other immediate post-LVAD complications and the cost of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression models analysis was performed to address potential confounding.

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics, diabetic patients who underwent cardiac support with LVAD have no significant increase in in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.79, 95% CI (0.57-1.10), p = 0.166), post-LVAD short-term complications and cost of hospitalization (OR: 0.97, 95% CI (0.93-1.01), p = 0.102).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac mechanical support with LVAD implantation is feasible and relatively safe in patients with diabetes and stage-D heart failure as a bridge for transplantation or as destination therapy for patients who are not candidates for transplantation. However, further trials and studies using bigger study sample and more comprehensive databases, need to be conducted for a stronger and more valid evidence.

Left ventricular assist device implantation improves glycaemic control: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) often coexist and have bidirectional association. Advanced HF is associated with worsened glycaemic control. This meta-analysis investigated the effects of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on markers of DM control.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE and Cochrane through October 2017 to identify studies evaluating advanced HF patients who had received an LVAD and reported markers of glycaemic control. The primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and the secondary outcomes included fasting glucose, daily insulin requirements, and body mass index (BMI). Outcomes were pooled using a Hartung-Knapp random-effects model producing a mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirteen studies, including 820 participants, were included. HbA1c was 1.23% lower following LVAD implantation (95% CI -1.49 to -0.98). Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with higher pre-LVAD values. Similarly, fasting plasma glucose (-24.4 mg/dL, 95% CI -33.4 to -15.5), daily insulin requirements (-18.8 units, 95% CI -28.8 to -8.7), and serum creatinine levels (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.06) were significantly lower than pre-LVAD levels. We saw no difference in BMI (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.24 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD implantation was associated with significant improvement in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and daily insulin need in advanced HF patients.

Prognostic implications of serial outpatient blood pressure measurements in patients with an axial continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure (BP) has been linked to adverse events during left ventricular assist device support. In this study we investigated the association between outpatient BP and stroke or suspected pump thrombosis among HeartMate II (HMII) recipients.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 220 HMII patients. Serial outpatient BP measurements were averaged. Patients were categorized by: (1) mean arterial pressure (MAP), high (>90 mm Hg) vs intermediate (80 mm Hg ≤ MAP ≤ 90 mm Hg) vs low (<80 mm Hg); (2) systolic BP (SBP), high (≥101 mm Hg, median) vs low; and (3) pulse pressure (PP), high (≥22 mm Hg, median) vs low. To assess visit-to-visit BP variability, patients were divided in quartiles of standard deviation of MAP and SBP. The primary end-point was the composite of stroke or suspected pump thrombosis.

RESULTS

The risk for the primary end-point was increased in the high MAP group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49 to 5.05, vs intermediate MAP; and 6.73, 1.9 to 23.9, vs low MAP). MAP had higher predictive value for the primary end-point compared with SBP (p = 0.05). Patients with high SBP had a higher rate of stroke (HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.09 to 7.17, vs low SBP). The combination of high SBP and low PP was associated with the highest risk for stroke. The lowest quartile of visit-to-visit MAP variability was associated with the highest risk for the primary end-point.

CONCLUSIONS

Elevated outpatient BP is associated with increased risk for stroke or suspected pump thrombosis in HMII recipients. Reduced PP and low visit-to-visit BP variability may confer additional risk.

Implantable Ventricular Assist Device Use and Outcomes in People With End-Stage Renal Disease

Background

People with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) are at risk for advanced heart failure, but little is known about use and outcomes of durable mechanical circulatory support in this setting. We examined use and outcomes of implantable ventricular assist devices (VADs) in a national ESRD cohort.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who underwent implantable VAD placement from 2006 to 2014. We examined in‐hospital and 1‐year mortality, all‐cause and cause‐specific hospitalizations, and heart/kidney transplantation outcomes. We investigated as predictors demographic factors, time‐period of VAD implantation, primary or post‐cardiotomy implantation, and duration of ESRD before VAD implantation. We identified 96 people with ESRD who underwent implantable VAD placement. At time of VAD implantation, 74 (77.1%) were receiving hemodialysis, 10 (10.4%) were receiving peritoneal dialysis and 12 (12.5%) had renal transplant. Time from incident ESRD to VAD implantation was median 4.0 (interquartile range 1.1, 8.2) years. Mortality during the implantation hospitalization was 40.6%. Within 1 year of implantation 61.5% of people had died. On multivariable analysis, males had half the mortality risk of females. Lower mortality risk was also seen with VAD implantation in a primary setting, and with more recent year of implantation, but these results did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD are undergoing durable VAD implantation, often several years after incident ESRD, although in low numbers. Mortality is high among these patients, highlighting the need for investigations to improve treatment selection and management.