Early Ventricular Arrhythmias After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND

Although sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are a common complication after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, the incidence, risk factors, and prognostic implications of postoperative early VAs (EVAs) in contemporary patients with LVAD are poorly understood.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A single-center retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent LVAD implantation from October 1, 2006, to October 1, 2022. EVA was defined as an episode of sustained VA identified ≤30 days after LVAD implantation. A total of 789 patients underwent LVAD implantation (mean age 62.9 ± 0. years 5, HeartMate 3 41.4%, destination therapy 43.3%). EVAs occurred in 100 patients (12.7%). A history of end-stage renal disease (odds ratio [OR] 5.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-21.70), preoperative electrical storm (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.11-7.16), and appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy before implantation (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.26-6.19) are independently associated with EVAs. EVA was associated with decreased 30-day survival (hazard ratio 3.02, 95% CI 1.1-8.3, P = .032). There was no difference in transplant-free survival time between patients with and without EVAs (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.5-1.4, P = .454).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAs are common after durable LVAD implantation and are associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality.

Incidence of barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 (alpha- and beta-predominant period) requiring mechanical ventilation: Single-center retrospective study

Objective

We sought to determine predictors, incidence, and interventions required for patients who developed barotrauma. Pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema, and pneumomediastinum have all been reported as complications related to COVID-19-positive patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

Methods

In this retrospective study, clinical and imaging data from COVID-19 patients were collected and reviewed by two independent intensivists between January 4, 2020 and January 10, 2020. Data were used to identify COVID-19-positive patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and the incidence of barotrauma. Two separate cohorts were created as non-injured (no barotrauma) and injured (barotrauma present). We then sought to identify the risk factors for barotrauma in the non-injured cohort on Days 0, 7, 10, and 14 after intubation and day of injury in the injured cohort.

Results

Of the 264 patients with COVID-19, 55.8% were African American. The non-injured group was older (60 ± 15 versus 49 ± 16, p = 0.006), with male predominance in the injured group versus non-injured group (75% versus 55%). A total of 16 (6.5%) patients developed one or more complications of barotrauma, defined as subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, or pneumomediastinum. Length of stay was longer for the injured group versus non-injured group (47 versus 25 days). Plateau pressure (p = 0.024), fraction of inspired oxygen (p < 0.001), and driving pressure (p = 0.001) were statistically significant in injured cohort. Mortality rate in non-injured versus injured was 49.4% versus 69%. Using random effect model, fraction of inspired oxygen (p = 0.003) and mean airway pressure (p = 0.010) were significant at the time of injury. When comparing alive versus deceased in the injured cohort, thoracostomy placement in alive versus deceased was 80% versus 54.5%.

Conclusion

COVID acute respiratory distress syndrome patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation had a higher rate of barotrauma and were younger than those who did not develop barotrauma. Possible interventions to be considered to decrease barotrauma are decreased driving pressure goal and universal use of esophageal balloon manometry.

The impact of left ventricular size on outcomes after centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

The influence of preoperative left ventricular size in outcomes following centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has not been well characterized.

METHODS

A cohort of 313 patients who received a centrifugal-flow LVAD at a single institution was analysed. Using a maximally selected log-rank statistic, we investigated whether a left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) cut-off point was associated with worse outcomes. The cohort was then divided in 2 groups based on the LVEDD cut-off point.

RESULTS

An LVEDD cut-off point of 59 mm was found to predict worse survival. Smaller LVEDD patients (≤59 mm, N = 52) were older and more likely to have a history of coronary artery disease compared those with a larger LVEDD (>59 mm, N = 261). Smaller LVEDD patients had lower survival compared to larger LVEDD patients (71% vs 85% at 1 year and 58% vs 80% at 2 years, P = 0.003). The need for temporary right ventricular mechanical support was significantly higher in the smaller LVEDD cohort (11.5% vs 1.9%, P = 0.002). Pump flows at time of discharge were lower in the smaller LVEDD group (3.8 vs 4.2 l/min, P = 0.005), who also had a higher incidence of late right ventricular failure (23% vs 12%, P = 0.02), higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (0.416 vs 0.256 events per patient-year, P = 0.025) and higher readmissions secondary to low flow alarms (0.429 vs 0.240 events per patient-year, P = 0.007). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that smaller LVEDD, older age, high BUN and high bilirubin levels were independent predictors of worse survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving a centrifugal-flow LVAD, smaller preoperative LVEDD (≤59 mm) was associated with lower survival and higher incidence of adverse outcomes.

Outcomes in patients with smaller body surface area after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Due to anatomic and physiologic concerns, prior generations of the left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have frequently been denied to patients with small body size. However, outcomes in patients with small body surface area (BSA) following HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD implantation remain relatively unknown.

METHODS

A cohort of 220 patients implanted at a single center was divided into two groups: BSA ≤1.8 m² (small BSA, n = 37) and BSA >1.8 m² (large BSA, n = 183). We investigated baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes including survival and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Small BSA patients were older (60 vs. 57 years), more likely female (60% vs. 20%), had a lower body mass index (24 vs. 32 kg/m² ), lower incidence of diabetes (32% vs. 51%), history of stroke (5% vs. 19%), and left ventricular thrombus (0% vs. 11%). They had smaller left ventricular end diastolic diameter (64.8 vs. 69.3 mm). Pump speed and pump flows at discharge were lower in the small BSA group. Survival at 1 year and 2 years was 86% versus 87% and 86% versus 79% for small versus large BSA groups (p = 0.408), respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar between groups and there were no cases of confirmed pump thrombosis. The incidence of readmissions for low flow alarms was higher in the small BSA group (0.55 vs. 0.24 EPPY).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate comparable outcomes in patients with small body size and suggest that this parameter should not be an exclusion criterion on patients who are otherwise candidates for HM3 LVAD implantation.

Intracranial hemorrhage type and same-admission mortality in patients with left ventricular assist devices

OBJECTIVES

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) provide mechanical circulatory support for patients with advanced heart failure. Intracranial hemorrhage in this population represent a significant management challenge. The objective of this study is to report our initial experience on same-admission outcomes with LVAD patients that presented with various types of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of a large volume center over a two-year period was performed. LVAD patients with ICH requiring a neurosurgical consultation were identified. Hemorrhage type, interventions, discharge disposition and cause of death were recorded.

RESULTS

27 LVAD patients with ICH received a neurosurgical consultation. The average INR at the time of ICH was 2.7 (1.0-8.8). Hemorrhage types seen were lobar (10/27, 37 %), SAH (5/27, 19 %), SDH (4/27, 15 %), cerebellar ICH (3/27, 11 %), multiple ICH (3/27, 11 %), and hemorrhagic conversion (2/27, 7 %). The overall mortality rate was 48.2 % (13/27), with the highest mortality being in those patients who had multiple ICH at the time of presentation (3/3, 100 %). The majority of patients with ICH (85.2 %) were non-operative. Lobar IPH was <3 cm in 80 % (8/10) of these, and 6/8 (75 %) ultimately died. 11 %(3/27) received surgical intervention. Of these, 67 % ultimately withdrew care. 77 % (10/13) of patients died as a result of the ICH. 80 % of patients with SAH were ultimately discharged home.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a LVAD and ICH have a high rate of same-admission mortality (48 %). Hemorrhage location, intra-axial or extra-axial, resulted in patients being a risk for death secondary to either the hemorrhage itself or pump thrombosis, respectively.

Sensitivity of Computed Tomography in Detection of Perirectal Abscess

Most patients with anorectal abscess are diagnosed clinically based on pain, erythema, warmth, and fluctuance. Some patients, however, present with subtle or atypical signs. CT is easily accessible and is commonly used for diagnosis and delineation of anorectal abscess. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of CT scan in detecting perirectal abscesses and to see if immune status impacts the accuracy of CT. A retrospective study was conducted to identify patients from 2000 to 2009 with International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code 566 (anal or rectal abscess). Patients included had a CT scan less than 48 hours before drainage. Patients with CT-positive abscess were compared with patients with CT-negative abscess. Patients were categorized as either immunocompetent or immunosuppressed based on documentation of diabetes mellitus, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus, or end-stage renal disease. One hundred thirteen patients were included in this study. Seventy-four (65.5%) were male and the average age was 47 years. Eighty-seven of 113 (77%) patients were positive on CT for anorectal abscess. Sixty of 113 (53%) patients included in this study were immunocompromised. CT missed 26 of 113 (23%) patients with confirmed perirectal abscess. Eighteen (69%) of these patients were immunocompromised compared with CT-positive patients (42 [48%], P = 0.05). The overall sensitivity of CT in identifying abscess was 77 per cent. CT lacks sensitivity in detecting perirectal abscess, particularly in the immunocompromised patient.

Sensitivity of computed tomography in detection of perirectal abscess

Most patients with anorectal abscess are diagnosed clinically based on pain, erythema, warmth, and fluctuance. Some patients, however, present with subtle or atypical signs. CT is easily accessible and is commonly used for diagnosis and delineation of anorectal abscess. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of CT scan in detecting perirectal abscesses and to see if immune status impacts the accuracy of CT. A retrospective study was conducted to identify patients from 2000 to 2009 with International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code 566 (anal or rectal abscess). Patients included had a CT scan less than 48 hours before drainage. Patients with CT-positive abscess were compared with patients with CT-negative abscess. Patients were categorized as either immunocompetent or immunosuppressed based on documentation of diabetes mellitus, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus, or end-stage renal disease. One hundred thirteen patients were included in this study. Seventy-four (65.5%) were male and the average age was 47 years. Eighty-seven of 113 (77%) patients were positive on CT for anorectal abscess. Sixty of 113 (53%) patients included in this study were immunocompromised. CT missed 26 of 113 (23%) patients with confirmed perirectal abscess. Eighteen (69%) of these patients were immunocompromised compared with CT-positive patients (42 [48%], P = 0.05). The overall sensitivity of CT in identifying abscess was 77 per cent. CT lacks sensitivity in detecting perirectal abscess, particularly in the immunocompromised patient.