Present-Day Hospital Readmissions after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Large Single-Center Study

Retinal microvascular remodeling associates with adverse events in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients

BACKGROUND

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cfLVAD) use is effective in supporting patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF). Reduced flow pulsatility within the systemic circulation in cfLVAD-supported patients may lead to alterations within the microcirculation. Temporal changes in microvasculature in relation to adverse events in cfLVAD-supported patients have not been studied. We aimed to profile changes within retinal microvasculature and its association with adverse events.

METHODS

Retinal photography was performed using Topcon TRC-NW8 nonmydriatic fundus camera in cfLVAD-supported patients and ESHF control patients. Specific retinal measurements were evaluated using a validated semiautomated program. Demographic and adverse event data were documented.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were studied (n = 29 cfLVAD, n = 19 ESHF). There were significant trends in retinal arteriolar caliber (B = -0.53 µm, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.96 to -0.10, p = 0.016) and retinal fractal dimension parameters (B = 0.014, 95% CI: 0.001-0.002, p = 0.016) in linear mixed model regressions. Among cfLVAD patients, there was a significant association between the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and stepwise increases in retinal arteriolar-venular caliber ratio (hazard ratio: 3.03, 95% CI: 2.06-4.45, p = 0.005), a measure of arteriolar narrowing.

CONCLUSIONS

We have observed for the first time that alterations in retinal microvasculature in cfLVAD-supported patients may be associated with gastrointestinal bleeding. While understanding these temporal changes may predict future adverse events in cfLVAD-supported patients, further multicenter studies are required to confirm the associations observed.

Gastrointestinal bleeding following Heartmate 3 left ventricular assist device implantation: The Michigan Bleeding Risk Model

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) results in frequent hospitalizations and impairs quality of life in durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. Anticipation of these events before implantation could have important implications for patient selection and management.

METHODS

The study population included all adult HeartMate 3 (HM3) primary LVAD recipients enrolled in the STS Intermacs registry from January 2017 to December 2020. Using multivariable modeling methodologies, we investigated the relationships between preimplantation characteristics and postimplant bleeding, bleeding and death, and additional bleeding episodes on subsequent bleeding episodes and created a risk score to predict the likelihood of post-LVAD GIB based solely on preimplantation factors.

RESULTS

Of 6,425 patients who received an HM3 LVAD, 1,010 (15.7%) patients experienced GIB. Thirteen preimplantation factors were independent predictors of post-LVAD GIB. A risk score was created from these factors and calculated for each patient. By 3 years postimplant, GIB occurred in 11%, 26%, and 43% of low-, medium- and high-risk patients, respectively. Experiencing 1 post-LVAD GIB event was associated with an increased risk for further GIB events, with 33.9% of patients experiencing at least 1 recurrence. While post-LVAD GIB was associated with mortality, there was no relationship between number of GIB events and death.

CONCLUSIONS

The Michigan Bleeding Risk Model is a simple tool, which facilitates the prediction of post-LVAD GIB in HM3 recipients using 13 preimplant variables. The implementation of this tool may help in the risk stratification process and may have therapeutic and clinical implications in HM3 LVAD recipients.

Left ventricular assist device-associated driveline infections as a specific form of complicated skin and soft tissue infection/acute bacterial skin and skin structure infection - issues and therapeutic options

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review comments on the current guidelines for the treatment of wound infections under definition of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI). However, wound infections around a catheter, such as driveline infections of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) are not specifically listed under this definition in any of the existing guidelines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Definitions and classification of LVAD infections may vary across countries, and the existing guidelines and recommendations may not be equally interpreted among physicians, making it unclear if these infections can be considered as ABSSSI. Consequently, the use of certain antibiotics that are approved for ABSSSI may be considered as 'off-label' for LVAD infections, leading to rejection of reimbursement applications in some countries, affecting treatment strategies, and hence, patients' outcomes. However, we believe driveline exit site infections related to LVAD can be included within the ABSSSI definition.

SUMMARY

We argue that driveline infections meet the criteria for ABSSSI which would enlarge the 'on-label' antibiotic armamentarium for treating these severe infections, thereby improving the patients' quality of life.

Using pulsatility responses to breath-hold maneuvers to predict readmission rates in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients

BACKGROUND

Dynamic respiratory maneuvers induce heterogenous changes to flow-pulsatility in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients. We evaluated the association of these pulsatility responses with patient hemodynamics and outcomes.

METHODS

Responses obtained from HVAD (Medtronic) outpatients during successive weekly clinics were categorized into three ordinal groups according to the percentage reduction in flow-waveform pulsatility (peak-trough flow) upon inspiratory-breath-hold, (%∆P): (1) minimal change (%∆P ≤ 50), (2) reduced pulsatility (%∆P > 50 but <100), (3) flatline (%∆P = 100). Same-day echocardiography and right-heart-catheterization were performed. Readmissions were compared between patients with ≥1 flatline response (F-group) and those without (NF-group).

RESULTS

Overall, 712 responses were obtained from 55 patients (82% male, age 56.4 ± 11.5). When compared to minimal change, reduced pulsatility and flatline responses were associated with lower central venous pressure (14.2 vs. 11.4 vs. 9.0 mm Hg, p = 0.08) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (19.8 vs. 14.3 vs. 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.03), lower rates of ≥moderate mitral regurgitation (48% vs. 13% vs. 10%, p = 0.01), lower rates of ≥moderate right ventricular impairment (62% vs. 25% vs. 27%, p = 0.03), and increased rates of aortic valve opening (32% vs. 50% vs. 75%, p = 0.03). The F-group (n = 28) experienced numerically lower all-cause readmissions (1.51 vs. 2.79 events-per-patient-year [EPPY], hazard-ratio [HR] = 0.67, p = 0.12), reduced heart failure readmissions (0.07 vs. 0.57 EPPY, HR = 0.15, p = 0.008), and superior readmission-free survival (HR = 0.47, log-rank p = 0.04). Syncopal readmissions occurred exclusively in the F-group (0.20 vs. 0 EPPY, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Responses to inspiratory-breath-hold predicted hemodynamics and readmission risk. The impact of inspiratory-breath-hold on pulsatility can non-invasively guide hemodynamic management decisions, patient optimization, and readmission risk stratification.

New Clues to Cardiovascular Disease: Erythrocyte Lifespan

Determination of erythrocyte lifespan is an important part of the diagnosis of hemolytic diseases. Recent studies have revealed alterations in erythrocyte lifespan among patients with various cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerotic coronary heart disease, hypertension, and heart failure. This review summarizes the progress of research on erythrocyte lifespan in cardiovascular diseases.

Research engagement and experiences of patients pre- and post-implant of a left ventricular assist device from the mechanical circulatory support measures of adjustment and quality of life (MCS A-QOL) study

PURPOSE

Adults living with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) present with unique challenges (e.g., left ventricular assist device [LVAD]-related self-care, adverse events) to research study enrollment, engagement, and completion. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of adults with MCS who were eligible for and enrolled in a study of health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

METHODS

In a secondary analysis of data from the Mechanical Circulatory Support: Measures of Adjustment and Quality of Life study, we used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate research engagement and experiences among adults preparing to undergo or currently living with MCS implant. First, we assessed the cascade of study engagement. Second, we assessed research experiences using a structured interview developed for this study.

RESULTS

Of 1011 participants approached for the study, 86.7% enrolled, 12.7% declined, and 0.6% were ineligible. Of 877 participants enrolled, 272 were pre-implant (of whom 88% completed assessments; "respondents") and 605 were post-implant (of whom 74% completed assessments). Only 14% of respondents reported difficulty completing the questionnaires, 54% had previously used an iPad to complete questionnaires, and 62% reported that their experience was "as expected." Respondents qualitatively described both positive (e.g., value of research) and negative (e.g., too much time) research experiences, difficulties completing questionnaires (e.g., online platform, health literacy issues), and provided recommendations for the questionnaires and delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants enjoyed participating in HRQOL research focused on MCS and had unique perspectives for improving the questionnaires. It is important to minimize the burden of participation and critical to be flexible to meet participant preferences for research engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03044535 (accessible at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03044535 ), registered February 7, 2017.

Decreasing driveline infections in patients supported on ventricular assist devices: a care pathway approach

Background

Driveline infections (DLIs) are a common adverse event in patients on ventricular assist devices (VADs) with incidence ranging from 14% to 59%. DLIs have an impact on patients and the healthcare system with efforts to prevent DLIs being essential. Prior to our intervention, our program had no standard driveline management presurgery and postsurgery. The purpose of this Quality Improvement (QI) initiative was to reduce DLIs and related admissions among patients with VAD within the first year post implant.

Methods

In anticipation of the QI project, we undertook a review of the programs’ current driveline management procedures and completed a survey with patients with VAD to identify current barriers to proper driveline management. Retrospective data were collected for a pre-QI intervention baseline comparison group, which included adult patients implanted with a durable VAD between 1 January 2017 and 31 July 2018. A three-pronged care pathway (CP) was initiated among patients implanted during August 2018 to July 2019. The CP included standardised intraoperative, postoperative and predischarge teaching initiatives and tracking. Using statistical process control methods, DLIs and readmissions in the first year post implant were compared between patients in the CP group and non-CP patients. P-charts were used to detect special cause variation.

Results

A higher proportion of CP group patients developed a DLI in the first year after implant (52% vs 32%). None developed a DLI during the index admission, which differed from the non-CP group and met criteria for special cause variation. There was a downward trend in cumulative DLI-related readmissions among CP group patients (55% vs 67%). There was no association between CP compliance and development of DLIs within 1 year post implant.

Conclusion

The CP did not lead to a reduction in the incidence of DLIs but there was a decrease in the proportion of patients with DLIs during their index admission and those readmitted for DLIs within 1 year post implant. This suggests that the CP played a role in decreasing the impact of DLIs in this patient population. However, given the short time period of follow-up longer follow-up will be required to look for sustained effects.

Clinical outcome in patients with end-stage heart failure who underwent continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in a single center

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The continuous flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) has improved the survival of chronic end-stage heart failure (HF) patients. Here we describe our clinical experience of the initial 50 LVAD patients from a single center.

METHODS

A total of 50 patients underwent LVAD implantation as bridge to transplantation (BTT; n = 28, 56%), bridge to candidacy (BTC; n = 2, 4%), or as destination therapy (DT; n = 20, 40%) from 2012 to 2019. Pre-implant characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between BTT/BTC and DT.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 67 years (range, 59 to 73). Men were more likely to receive LVAD (76% vs. 24%) than women. DT patients were older, had smaller body surface area, and worse laboratory profiles than BTT/BTC patients. There was no in-hospital mortality. During an average of 14 months (range, 8 to 23), the all-cause mortality was 22%. The first-year survival was 86 and 90% in BTT/BTC and DT groups, respectively. Hemorrhagic stroke was the most common cause (27%) of death. In the BTT/BTC group, 22 patients successfully underwent heart transplantation during median duration of 10 months (range, 7 to 14). The most common post-LVAD complication during the first year of LVAD implantation was major bleeding (44%). A significant proportion (76%) of patients experienced rehospitalization with gastrointestinal bleeding as the most common cause.

CONCLUSION

We describe short-term clinical outcome of LVAD patients from a single center for the first time in Korea. With the newer generation LVAD and a dedicated team approach, improved clinical outcomes of LVAD for end-stage HF are expected.

HFA of the ESC Position paper on the management of LVAD supported patients for the non LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 1: Introduction and at the non-hospital settings in the community

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD‐supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD‐supported patients. The expected and non‐expected device‐related and patient–device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD‐supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD‐supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non‐LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non‐LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast‐growing population of LVAD‐supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD‐supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD‐supported patients.

Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology position paper on the management of left ventricular assist device-supported patients for the non-left ventricular assist device specialist healthcare provider: Part 2: at the emergency department

The improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology and scarcity of donor hearts have increased dramatically the population of the LVAD‐supported patients and the probability of those patients to present to the emergency department with expected and non‐expected device‐related and patient–device interaction complications. The ageing of the LVAD‐supported patients, mainly those supported with the ‘destination therapy’ indication, increases the risk for those patients to suffer from other co‐morbidities common in the older population. In this second part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the LVAD‐supported patient presenting to the emergency department with bleeding, neurological event, pump thrombosis, chest pain, syncope, and other events are presented. The very challenging issue of declaring death in an LVAD‐supported patient, as the circulation is artificially preserved by the device despite no other signs of life, is also discussed in detail.

The impact of socioeconomic status in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs)

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) can be a powerful predictor of adverse outcomes among heart failure patients but its impact on survival and readmission following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation surgery is poorly understood. We investigated if the LVAD recipients from more deprived neighborhoods experienced higher mortality and readmission rate after device implantation as compared to those from less deprived areas.

METHODS

This is a single center, retrospective analysis evaluating adults who received Heartmate III and Heartware HVAD implants between 2009 and 2018. SES indicators were area of deprivation index (ADI), race and income. Our cohort was grouped by ADI quartiles from least deprived (Q1), Q2, Q3 to the most deprived (Q4). Outcomes included overall mortality and readmission following surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients were included in the study. Demographics by SES indicators demonstrated that least deprived (Q1) patients were older than the most deprived (65 vs. 57, p < .01), African-American patients originated from more deprived neighborhoods than Caucasians (ADI 87 vs. 62, p < .001), and high-income patients had higher preoperative BUN and creatinine. Outcome differences included a decreased risk of death in most deprived patients (Q4) compared to the least deprived (Q1), however after adjusting for age, LVAD indication, and INTERMACS profile this was no longer significant. No differences in survival or readmission by race or income was observed CONCLUSION: SES does not independently impact survival and readmission after Heartware HVAD and Heartmate III LVAD implantation. More studies are needed to evaluate if other SES factors affect these outcomes.

Trends and outcomes of device-related 30-day readmissions after left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) improve morbidity and mortality in end-stage heart failure patients, but high rates of readmissions remain a problem after implantation. We aimed to assess the incidence, trends, outcomes, and predictors of device-related 30-day readmissions after LVAD implantation.

METHODS

The National Readmission Database was used to identify patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2012 and 2017 and those with 30-day readmissions.

RESULTS

The analysis included a total of 16499 adults who survived the index hospitalization for LVAD implantation. Among those, 28.1% were readmitted at 30 days, and the readmission rate has been grossly stable during the study period. Most of the readmissions occurred in the first 15 days after discharge from the index admission. The most frequent cause of readmissions was gastrointestinal bleeding (14.9% of readmissions), followed by heart failure, arrhythmias, device infection, and device thrombosis. Among reasons for readmission, intracranial bleeding was associated with highest mortality (37.6%), followed by device thrombosis (13.1%), and ischemic stroke (7.6%). Intracranial bleeding and device thrombosis were associated with lengthier stay (20.4 and 15.5 days, respectively). Readmission rates for gastrointestinal bleeding decreased, whereas device infection increased. Multivariate logistic regression model revealed the length of stay, oxygen dependence, gastrointestinal bleeding at index admission, depression and ECMO, private insurance as independent predictors of 30-day readmission.

CONCLUSION

Over one-fourth of LVAD recipients have 30-day readmissions, with most of them occurring within 15 days. Most frequent cause of readmission was gastrointestinal bleeding, which was associated with the lowest in-hospital mortality among other complications.

Inadequate left ventricular unloading during ramp is associated with hospitalization or death during left ventricular assist device support

A combined right and left-sided heart catheterization (RHC/LHC) protocol was recently reported to optimize patients supported by left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Using this platform, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of several hemodynamic indices, including left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) and transaortic gradient (peak aortic pressure - peak left ventricular pressure in systole, TAG). We evaluated all patients undergoing RHC/LHC at our institution from 2015 through 2018, and comprehensive clinical data were obtained. Primary end points were (1) a composite outcome that included hospitalization or death and (2) 1-year overall survival after catheterization. Forty-two patients were included in the analysis. Optimization resulted in normalization of hemodynamic parameters; all variables were significantly improved from baseline (P ≤ .05). On univariate modeling, final LVEDP was associated with the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2 per 1-mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3; P = .002). After adjusting for LVAD speed, TAG, and cardiac index in a multivariate model, the association between LVEDP and the composite end point remained significant (HR, 1.2 per 1-mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; P = .001). In the setting of LVAD support, inadequate LV unloading was a significant marker of poor outcomes with time, suggesting that LVEDP is a central prognostic marker in this population.

Discharge and Readmission to the Pediatric Cardiac ICU in Pediatric Patients With Durable Ventricular Assist Devices

OBJECTIVES

Pediatric patients implanted with a durable ventricular assist device are initially managed in the pediatric cardiac ICU but are eligible for discharge to the ward. Our objectives were to characterize discharge and readmission of ventricular assist device patients to the pediatric cardiac ICU, identify risk factors for readmission, and determine whether discharge or readmission is associated with mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Stollery Children's Hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients implanted with a durable ventricular assist device at less than 18 years old between 2005 and 2016.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 44 patients who underwent ventricular assist device implantation at a median age of 3.7 years (interquartile range, 0.6-9.0 yr), with the most common etiology being noncongenital heart disease (76.7%). Median time of total ventricular assist device support was 110.0 days (interquartile range, 42.3-212.3 d) with the median index pediatric cardiac ICU stay being 34.0 days (interquartile range, 19.8-81.0 d). Thirty patients (68.0%) were discharged to the ward with 18 (60.0%) having at least one readmission. The median time to first readmission was 18.0 days (interquartile range, 14.8-109.8 d) with a median of two readmissions per patient (interquartile range, 1.0-3.0). The most common reason for readmission was pump thrombosis (30.4%), followed by neurologic dysfunction (23.9%). There were no statistically significant pre- or post-implant factors associated with readmission, and readmission was not associated with mortality (p = 0.600). Univariate Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that use of pre-implant extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, post-implant continuous renal replacement therapy, as well as failure to be discharged from the index pediatric cardiac ICU stay were associated with mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Readmissions to the pediatric cardiac ICU occurred in 60.0% of pediatric patients on durable ventricular assist devices with the first readmission occurring within a month of discharge from the index pediatric cardiac ICU stay. While readmission was not associated with mortality, lack of discharge from index pediatric cardiac ICU stay was likely due to a worse pre-implant clinical status.

Optimal Hemodynamics During Left Ventricular Assist Device Support Are Associated With Reduced Readmission Rates

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves the hemodynamics of advanced heart failure patients. However, it is unknown whether hemodynamic optimization improves clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate whether hemodynamic optimization reduces hospital readmission rate in LVAD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

LVAD patients undergoing an invasive hemodynamic ramp test were prospectively enrolled and followed for 1 year. LVAD speed was optimized using a ramp test, targeting the following goals: central venous pressure <12 mm Hg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure <18 mm Hg, and cardiac index >2.2 L/(min·m²). The frequency and cause of hospital readmissions were compared between patients who achieved (optimized group) or did not achieve (nonoptimized group) these goals. Eighty-eight outpatients (median 61 years old, 53 male) underwent ramp testing 236 days after LVAD implantation, and 54 (61%) had optimized hemodynamics after LVAD speed adjustment. One-year survival after the ramp study was comparable in both groups (89% versus 88%). The total hospital readmission rate was lower in the optimized group compared with the nonoptimized group (1.15 versus 2.86 events/y, P<0.001). This result was predominantly because of a reduction in the heart failure readmission rate in the optimized group (0.08 versus 0.71 events/y, P=0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD patients, in whom hemodynamics were optimized, had a significantly lower rate of hospital readmissions, primarily because of fewer heart failure admissions. These findings highlight the importance of achieving hemodynamic optimization in LVAD patients.

Mobile Geolocation Technology to Improve Multidisciplinary Care of Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices: A Feasibility Study

We evaluated the feasibility of a mobile phone-based geolocation technology in patients with ventricular assist devices (VAD). We prospectively enrolled VAD patients with a smartphone for 6 months. A proprietary mobile technology platform (Position Health, Reading, MA) was downloaded onto Apple or Android smartphones. When a patient entered an emergency department, the app was activated and a "ping" with patient location and contact information was sent to our VAD team pager. Fifty-four patients were approached, and 21 were enrolled. The primary reason for nonenrollment was lack of smartphone (46%). The technology was active for 3780 patient-days and activated on 4 occasions, all cases in which patients were inside a hospital but not seeking emergency care. When surveyed at 3 and 6 months, 90% and 100% of patients, respectively, reported the app remained active on their phones; 14 of 18 (78%) reported the app was helpful and gave them additional reassurance. Implementing this technology for VAD patients was feasible and accepted by patients and providers, but a larger study is needed to demonstrate an impact on care delivery.

Intensive Care Unit Readmission After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Causes, Associated Factors, and Association With Patient Mortality

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on readmissions after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation have focused on hospital readmissions after dismissal from the index hospitalization. Because few data exist, the purpose of this study was to examine intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions in patients during their initial hospitalization for LVAD implantation to determine reasons for, factors associated with, and incidence of mortality after ICU readmission.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed from February 2007 to March 2015 of patients at our institution receiving first-time LVAD implantation. After LVAD implantation, patients dismissed from the ICU who then required ICU readmission before hospital dismissal were compared to those not requiring ICU readmission before hospital dismissal with respect to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.

RESULTS

Among 287 LVAD patients, 266 survived their initial ICU admission, of which 49 (18.4%) required ICU readmission. The most common reasons for readmission were bleeding and respiratory failure. Factors found to be univariably associated with ICU readmission were preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative aspartate aminotransferase, preoperative atrial fibrillation, preoperative dialysis, longer cardiopulmonary bypass times, and higher intraoperative allogeneic blood transfusion requirements. Multivariable analysis revealed ICU readmission to be independently associated with preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 12.86; 95% confidence interval, 3.16-52.28; P < .001). Overall mortality at 1 year was 22.6%. Survival after hospital dismissal was worse for patients who required ICU readmission during the index hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-4.81; P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

ICU readmission after LVAD implantation occurred relatively frequently and was significantly associated with 1-year mortality after hospital dismissal. These data can perhaps be used to identify subsets of LVAD patients at risk for ICU readmission and may lead to implementation of practice changes to mitigate ICU readmissions. Future larger and prospective studies are warranted.

An Urban 9-1-1 System's Experience with Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used with increasing frequency and left in place for longer periods of time. Prior publications have focused on the mechanics of troubleshooting the device itself. We aim to describe the epidemiology of LVAD patient presentations to emergency medical services (EMS), prehospital assessments and interventions, and hospital outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review of known LVAD patients that belong to a single academic center's heart failure program who activated the 9-1-1 system and were transported by an urban EMS system to one of the center's 2 emergency departments between January 2012 and December 2015. Identifying demographics were used to query the electronic medical record of the responding city fire agency and contracted transporting ambulance service. Two reviewers abstracted prehospital chief complaint, vital signs, assessments, and interventions. Emergency department and hospital outcomes were retrieved separately. Results: From January 2012 to December 2015, 15 LVAD patients were transported 16 times. The most common prehospital chief complaint was weakness (7/16), followed by chest pain (3/16). Of the 7 patients presenting with weakness, one was diagnosed with a stroke in the emergency department. Another patient was diagnosed with subarachnoid hemorrhage and expired during hospital admission. This was the only death in the cohort. The most common hospital diagnosis was GI bleed (3/16). The overall admission rate was 87.5% (14/16). Conclusions: EMS interactions with LVAD patients are infrequent but have high rates of admission and incidence of life-threatening diagnoses. The most common prehospital presenting symptoms were weakness and chest pain, and most prehospital interactions did not require LVAD-specific interventions. In addition to acquiring technical knowledge regarding LVADs, EMS providers should be aware of non-device-related complications including intracranial and GI bleeding and take this into account during their assessment.

Readmission Patterns During Long-Term Follow-Up After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

As more patients are supported for longer periods by a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), hospital readmission is becoming a growing problem. However, data about temporal changes in readmission rates and causes for patients with prolonged LVAD support are limited. We aimed to evaluate rates, causes, and predictors of any and long-term readmission after LVAD placement at our institution. We followed 177 HeartMate II LVAD patients for a mean of 1.90 ± 1.33 years post initial discharge after implantation. A marginal rate model was used to evaluate readmission rates, accounting for mortality. During the first year, the readmission rate was 1.79 (95% confidence interval 1.51 to 2.10) readmissions per year. The readmission rate was 1.54 (95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.93) 2 to 3 years after initial discharge. There was a further decrease in readmission rate in the 3- to 4-year interval. The most common causes of readmission during the first year and even after 3 to 4 years of LVAD support were bleeding (excluding intracranial bleeding) and infection. Female gender was associated with an increased risk of readmission in multivariable analyses, while blood urea nitrogen was predictive of long-term readmissions. In conclusion, readmission after LVAD implantation is common, but readmission rates decrease during long-term follow-up. Bleeding and infection remain leading causes of readmission during longer follow-up and strategies to decrease these complications may reduce readmission rates. Female patients and patients with renal dysfunction have increased risk of readmission and further studies are needed to improve outcomes in these groups.

Emergency department visits among patients with left ventricular assist devices

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly implanted to support patients with end-stage heart failure. These patients are at high risk for complications, many of which necessitate emergency care. While rehospitalization rates have been described, there is little data regarding emergency department (ED) visits. We hypothesize that ED visits are frequent and often require admission after LVAD implantation. We performed a retrospective review of patients in our health-care system followed by the advanced heart failure service for LVAD management after implantation between January 2011 and July 2015. We accounted for all ED visits in our system through February 2016, 7 months after the last implantation included. Clinically relevant demographic variables and ED visit details were recorded and analyzed to describe this population. We identified 81 patients with complete data, among whom there were 283 visits (3.49 visits/patient), occurring at a rate of approximately 7.3 ED visits per patient per year alive with LVAD. The most common reason for an ED visit is a complication related to bleeding (18% of visits), followed by chest pain (14%) and dizziness or syncope (13%). Thirty-six percent of patients were discharged from the ED without hospital admission. A growing populace with implanted LVADs represents an important population within emergency medicine. They are at risk for significant complications and frequently present to the ED. While many of these visits may be managed without hospital admission, this specialized patient group represents a potential area for improvement in provider education.

Hospital Complications and Causes of 90-Day Readmissions After Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as an attractive option in patients with advance heart failure. Nationwide readmission database 2013 to 2014 was utilized to identify LVAD recipients using ICD-9 procedure code 37.66. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission. Readmission causes were identified using ICD-9 codes in primary diagnosis field. The secondary outcomes were LVAD associated with hospital complications. Hierarchic 2-level logistic models were used to evaluate study outcomes. We identified 4,693 LVAD recipients (mean age 57 years, 76.2% males). Of which 53.9% were readmitted in first 90 days of discharge. Cardiac causes (33.3%), bleeding (21.3%), and infections (12.4%) were leading etiologies of 90-day readmissions. Significant predictors (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) of readmission were disposition to nursing facilities (1.33, 1.09 to 1.63, p = 0.01) and longer length of stay (1.01, 1.00 to 1.01, p <0.01). Although private insurance (0.75, 0.66 to 0.86, p <0.01), and self-pay (0.58, 0.42 to 0.81, p <0.01) predicted lower readmissions. Cardiac complications (36.3%), major bleeding (29.8%), and postoperative infections (10.4%) were most common LVAD-related complications. In conclusion, high early readmission rate was observed among LVAD recipients with Cardiac complications, bleeding complications, and infections were driving force for major complications and most of readmissions.

Telemonitoring of left-ventricular assist device patients-current status and future challenges

E-health, especially telemedicine, has undergone a remarkably dynamic development over the past few years. Most experience is currently in the field of telemedical care for heart failure (HF) patients. However, HF patients with an implanted left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) have been more or less excluded from consistent telemonitoring until now. And yet, continual monitoring would be very significant for this patient group because of the complexity of its aftercare, requiring steady control of various parameters (device-related parameters, vital parameters, coagulation parameters, etc.). With timely action, severe and costly complications like pump thromboses and driveline infections could be detected early on or even avoided completely. This paper describes the potential of telemonitoring in LVAD patients, as well as its first clinical implementation according to the available literature. It also describes the requirements for a complete telemonitoring of LVAD patients, facilitating the advancement of this form of continual monitoring to a clinical standard which would increase the quality of aftercare for this very special patient collective enormously.

A Standardized Telephone Intervention Algorithm Improves the Survival of Ventricular Assist Device Outpatients

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are an established therapeutic option for patients with chronic heart failure. Continuous monitoring of VAD parameters and their adherence to guidelines are crucial to detect problems in an early stage to optimize outcomes. A telephone intervention algorithm for VAD outpatients was developed, clinically implemented and evaluated. During the phone calls, a structured inquiry of pump parameters, alarms, blood pressure, INR, body weight and temperature, exit‐site status and heart failure symptoms was performed and electronically categorized by an algorithm into 5 levels of severity. VAD outpatient outcomes without (n = 71) and with bi‐weekly telephone interviews in their usual care (n = 25) were conducted using proportional hazard Cox regression, with risk adjustment based on a propensity score model computed from demographics and risk factors. From February 2015 through October 2017, 25 patients (n = 3 HeartMate II, n = 4 HeartMate 3 and n = 18 HeartWare HVAD) underwent 637 telephone interventions. In 57.5% of the calls no problems were identified, 3.9% were recalled on the next day because of alarms. In 26.5% (n = 169), the VAD Coordinator had to refer to the physician due to elevated blood pressure (n = 125, >85 mm Hg), INR < 2.0 or > 4.0 (n = 24) or edema (n = 10), 11.9% of the calls led to a follow‐up because of equipment or exit‐site problems. Propensity‐adjusted 2‐year survival (89% vs. 57%, P = 0.027) was significantly higher for the telephone intervention group. Continuous, standardized communication with VAD outpatients is important for early detection of upcoming problems and leads to significantly improved survival.

Causes and Predictors of 30-Day Readmission in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Background:

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurs as a result of irreversible damage to cardiac myocytes secondary to lack of blood supply. Cardiogenic shock complicating AMI has significant associated morbidity and mortality, and data on postdischarge outcomes are limited.

Methods and Results:

We derived the study cohort of patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock from the 2013 to 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Readmission Database. Incidence, predictors, and causes of 30-day readmissions were analyzed. From 43 212 index admissions for AMI with cardiogenic shock, 26 016 (60.2%) survived to discharge and 5277 (20.2% of survivors) patients were readmitted within 30 days. More than 50% of these readmissions occurred within first 10 days. Cardiac causes accounted for 42% of 30-day readmissions (heart failure 20.6%; acute coronary syndrome 11.6%). Among noncardiac causes, respiratory (11.4%), infectious (9.4%), medical or surgical care complications (6.3%), gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary (6.5%), and renal causes (4.8%) were most common. Length of stay ≥8 days (odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70–2.44; P <0.01), acute deep venous thrombosis (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08–1.48; P <0.01), liver disease (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.03–1.50; P =0.02), systemic thromboembolism (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02–1.44; P =0.02), peripheral vascular disease (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07–1.27; P <0.01), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.08–1.24; P <0.01), long-term ventricular assist device implantation (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.23–2.55; P <0.01), intraaortic balloon pump use (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.02–1.18; P <0.01), performance of coronary artery bypass grafting (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77–0.93; P <0.01), private insurance (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64–0.80; P <0.01), and discharge to home (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73–0.98; P =0.03) were among the independent predictors of 30-day readmission.

Conclusions:

In-hospital mortality and 30-day readmission in cardiogenic shock complicating AMI are significantly elevated. Patients are readmitted mainly for noncardiac causes. Identification of high-risk factors may guide interventions to improve outcomes within this population.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in the United States

Background:

Early readmissions contribute significantly to heart failure–related morbidity and negatively affect quality of life. Data on left ventricular assist device (LVAD)–related 30-day readmissions are scarce and limited to small studies.

Methods and Results:

Patients undergoing LVAD implantation between January 2013 and November 2014 who survived the index hospitalization were identified in the Nationwide Readmissions Database. We analyzed the incidence, predictors, causes, and costs of 30-day readmissions. Of 2510 LVAD recipients, 788 (31%) were readmitted within 30 days. Length of index hospitalization ≥31 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–1.50) and female sex (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01–1.42) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission, whereas private insurance (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70–0.99), pre-LVAD use of short-term mechanical circulatory support (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29–0.98), and discharge to a short-term hospital facility (HR, 0.41; CI, 0.21–0.78) were associated with a lower risk. Cardiac causes accounted for 23.8% of readmissions: heart failure (13.4%) and arrhythmias (8.1%). Noncardiovascular causes accounted for 76.2% of readmissions: infection (30.2%), bleeding (17.6%), and device-related causes (8.2%). Mean length of stay for readmission was 10.7 days (median, 6 days), and average hospital cost per readmission was $34 948±2457.

Conclusions:

Early readmissions are frequent after LVAD implantation even in contemporary times. Preimplant identification of high-risk patients, and a protocol-driven follow-up using a multidisciplinary approach will be needed to reduce readmissions and improve outcomes.

Palliative care in heart failure

Palliative care (PC) is now recommended by all major cardiovascular societies for advanced heart failure (HF). PC is a philosophy of care that uses a holistic approach to address physical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs in patients with a terminal disease process. In HF, PC has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of life, facilitate advanced care planning, decrease hospital readmissions, and decrease hospital-associated healthcare costs. Although PC is still underutilized in HF, uptake is increasing. Specific strategies for successfully implementing PC in HF include early PC involvement, multidisciplinary collaboration, exploring patient values for end-of-life care, medical therapy (including both the addition of symptom-directed medications, as well as the removal of life-prolonging medications), and considerations regarding device therapy and mechanical support. Barriers to PC in HF include difficulties predicting the disease trajectory, patient and physician misconceptions, and lack of PC-trained physicians. Moving forward, PC will continue to be a key part of advanced HF care as our knowledge of this area grows.

Association of global and disease-specific health status with outcomes following continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

The prognostic value of heart failure specific and global health status before and after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation in the usual care setting is not well studied.

METHODS

We included 3,836 continuous-flow LVAD patients in the INTERMACS registry. Health status was measured pre-operatively and 3 months post-LVAD using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and EuroQol visual analog scale (VAS). Primary outcomes were mortality/rehospitalization. Inverse propensity weighting was used to minimize bias from missing data.

RESULTS

Pre-operative global and heart failure-specific health status were very poor: KCCQ median 34.6 (IQR 21.4-50.5); VAS median 43 (interquartile range (IQR) 25-65). Health status measures improved 3 months after LVAD placement: KCCQ median 69.3 (IQR 54.2-82.3); VAS median 75 (IQR 60-85). Pre-operative health status was not associated with death (unadjusted HR for lowest vs. highest score quartiles: 1.09 (0.85-1.41) KCCQ; 1.12 (0.85-1.49) VAS) or rehospitalization (unadjusted HR 0.83 (0.72-0.96) KCCQ; 0.99 (0.85-1.16) VAS). Three-month KCCQ was associated with mortality (unadjusted HR 2.17 (1.47-3.21); VAS was not (1.43 (0.94-2.17). Three-month KCCQ added incremental discriminatory value to the HeartMate II Risk Score for death (c-stat 0.60 to 0.66); VAS did not (c-stat 0.59 to 0.60). Three-month health status was associated with rehospitalization (unadjusted HR 1.31 (1.15-1.57) KCCQ; 1.24 (1.05-1.46) VAS), but did not add incremental discriminatory value (c-stat 0.52 to 0.55 and 0.54, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These real-world data suggest that pre-operative health status has limited association with outcomes after LVAD. However, persistently low health status after surgery may independently signal higher risk for subsequent death. Further study is needed to determine the clinical utility of routinely collected health status data after LVAD implantation.

Current status of the implantable LVAD

With the ongoing shortage of available organs for heart transplantation, mechanical circulatory support devices have been increasingly utilized for managing acute and chronic heart failure that is refractory to medical therapy. In particular, the introduction of the left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has revolutionized the field. In this review, we will discuss a brief history of the LVAD, available devices, current indications, patient selection, complications, and outcomes. In addition, we will discuss recent outcomes and advancements in the field of noncardiac surgery in the LVAD patient. Finally, we will discuss several topics for surgical consideration during LVAD implantation.