Dataset Information

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Worldwide, the left ventricular assist device Impella® (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is increasingly implanted in patients with acute cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions. Despite its long history of use, few studies have assessed its safety and possible complications associated with its use. All patients treated with a left-sided Impella® device at the University Hospital of Basel from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019 were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the composite rate of mortality and adverse events (bleeding, acute kidney injury, and limb ischemia). Out of 281 included patients, at least one adverse event was present in 262 patients (93%). Rates of in-hospital, 90-day, and one-year mortality were 48%, 47%, and 50%, respectively. BARC type 3 bleeding (62%) and hemolysis (41.6%) were the most common complications. AKI was observed in 50% of all patients. Renal replacement therapy was required in 97 (35%) of all patients. Limb ischemia occurred in 13% of cases. Bleeding and hemolysis are common Impella®-associated complications. Additionally, we found a high rate of AKI. A careful selection of patients receiving microaxial LV support and defining the indication for its use are essential measures to be taken for the benefits to outweigh potential complications.

SUBMITTER: Zaiser AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8396891 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study.

Zaiser Anna S AS Fahrni Gregor G Hollinger Alexa A Knobel Demian T DT Bovey Yann Y Zellweger Núria M NM Buser Andreas A Santer David D Pargger Hans H Gebhard Caroline E CE Siegemund Martin M

Journal of clinical medicine 20210820 16

Worldwide, the left ventricular assist device Impella<sup>®</sup> (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is increasingly implanted in patients with acute cardiogenic shock or undergoing high-risk cardiac interventions. Despite its long history of use, few studies have assessed its safety and possible complications associated with its use. All patients treated with a left-sided Impella<sup>®</sup> device at the University Hospital of Basel from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2019 were enrolled. The primary e ...[more]

PMID: 34442010

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInformation regarding the performance and outcomes of noncardiac surgery (NCS) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is scarce, with limited longitudinal follow-up data that are mostly limited to single-center reports.ObjectiveTo examine the trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with NCS among patients with LVAD.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study examined patients enrolled in Medicare undergoing durable LVAD implantation from January 2012 to November 2017 with follow-up through December 2017. The study included all Medicare Provider and Analysis Review Part A files for the years 2012 to 2017. Patients identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes for new LVAD implantation were included. Data analysis was performed from November 2019 to February 2020.ExposuresNCS procedures were identified using the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 procedural codes and divided into elective and urgent or emergent.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage after NCS. Early (<60 days after NCS) and late (≥60 days after NCS) mortality after NCS were analyzed in both subgroups using time-varying covariate and landmark analysis using patients who did not undergo NCS as reference.ResultsOf the 8118 patients with LVAD (mean [SD] age, 63.4 [10.8] years; 6484 men [79.9%]), 1326 (16.3%, or approximately 1 in 6) underwent NCS, of which 1000 procedures (75.4%) were emergent or urgent and 326 (24.6%) were elective. There was no difference in age between patients who underwent NCS and patients who did not (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.6] vs 63.4 [10.9] years). The number of NCS procedures among patients with LVAD increased from 64 in 2012 to 304 in 2017. The median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to NCS was 309 (133-606) days. The most frequent type of NCS was general (613 abdominal, pelvic, and gastrointestinal procedures [46.2%]). Perioperative MACEs occurred in 169 patients (16.9%) undergoing emergent or urgent NCS and 23 patients (7.1%) undergoing elective NCS. Urgent or emergent NCS was associated with higher mortality early (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 8.78; 95% CI, 7.20-10.72; P < .001) and late (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.53-1.90; P < .001) after NCS compared with patients with LVAD who did not undergo NCS. Elective NCS was also associated with higher mortality early (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.03; P < .001) and late (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56; P = .008) after NCS.Conclusions and relevanceOne of 6 patients with LVAD underwent NCS. Perioperative MACEs were frequent. Higher mortality risk transcended the early postoperative period in urgent or emergent and elective surgical procedures.

Project description:ObjectivesImplantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) reduces the risk of all-cause mortality in symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nevertheless, the prognostic impact of ICD therapy in continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients remains controversial.Methods162 consecutive HF patients, who underwent LVAD implantation at our institution between 2010 and 2019, were categorized according to the presence (n = 94, ICD-group) or absence (n = 68, Control-group) of ICDs. Apart from clinical baseline and follow-up parameters, adverse events (AEs) related to ICD therapy and overall survival rates were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsOut of 162 consecutive LVAD recipients 79 patients (48.8%) were preoperatively categorized as Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile ≤2. The prevalence of severe HF symptoms and preoperative use of short-term circulatory support devices (54.4% vs. 13.8%, p < 0.001) was higher within the Control-group, although baseline severity of LV and RV dysfunction was similar. Apart from an increased prevalence of perioperative right heart failure (RHF) within the Control-group (45.6% vs. 17.0%; p < 0.001), procedural characteristics and perioperative outcome were similar. Overall-survival during a median follow-up of 14 (3.0-36.5) months was similar within both groups (p = 0.46). During the first 2 years after LVAD implantation 53 ICD-related AEs occurred within the ICD-group. Thereof, lead-dysfunction occurred in 19 patients and unplanned ICD-reintervention in 11 patients. Furthermore, in 18 patients appropriate shocks without loss of consciousness occurred, whereas inappropriate shocks occurred in 5 patients.ConclusionICD therapy in LVAD recipients was not associated with a survival benefit or reduced morbidity after LVAD implantation. Conservative ICD-programming seems to be justified to avoid ICD-related complications and "awake shocks" after LVAD implantation.

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies describe an emerging role for percutaneous left ventricular assist devices such as Impella CP® as rescue therapy for refractory cardiac arrest. We hypothesized that the addition of mechanical chest compressions to percutaneous left ventricular assist device assisted CPR would improve hemodynamics by compressing the right ventricle and augmenting pulmonary blood flow and left ventricular filling. We performed a pilot study to test this hypothesis using a swine model of prolonged cardiac arrest.MethodsEight Yorkshire swine were anesthetized, intubated, and instrumented for hemodynamic monitoring. They were subjected to untreated ventricular fibrillation for 5.75 (SD 2.90) minutes followed by mechanical chest compressions for a mean of 20.0 (SD 5.0) minutes before initiation of percutaneous left ventricular assist device. After percutaneous left ventricular assist device initiation, mechanical chest compressions was stopped (n = 4) or continued (n = 4). Defibrillation was attempted 4, 8 and 12 minutes after initiating percutaneous left ventricular assist device circulatory support.ResultsThe percutaneous left ventricular assist device + mechanical chest compressions group had significantly higher percutaneous left ventricular assist device flow prior to return of spontaneous heartbeat at four- and twelve-minutes after percutaneous left ventricular assist device initiation, and significantly higher end tidal CO2 at 4-minutes after percutaneous left ventricular assist device initiation, when compared with the percutaneous left ventricular assist device alone group. Carotid artery flow was not significantly different between the two groups.ConclusionThe addition of mechanical chest compressions to percutaneous left ventricular assist device support during cardiac arrest may generate higher percutaneous left ventricular assist device and carotid artery flow prior to return of spontaneous heartbeat compared to percutaneous left ventricular assist device alone. Further studies are needed to determine if this approach improves other hemodynamic parameters or outcomes after prolonged cardiac arrest.

Project description:AimsSince the withdrawal of HeartWare (HVAD) from the global market, there is an ongoing discussion if and which patients require prophylactically exchange for a HeartMate 3 (HM3). Therefore, it is important to study outcome differences between HVAD and HM3 patients. Because centres differ in patient selection and standard of care, we performed a propensity score (PS)-based study including centres that implanted both devices and aimed to identify which HVAD patients are at highest risk.Methods and resultsWe performed an international multi-centre study (n = 1021) including centres that implanted HVAD and HM3. PS-matching was performed using clinical variables and the implanting centre. Survival and complications were compared. As a sensitivity analysis, PS-adjusted Cox regression was performed. Landmark analysis with conditional survival >2 years was conducted to evaluate long-term survival differences. To identify which HVAD patients may benefit from a HM3 upgrade, Cox regression using pre-operative variables and their interaction with device type was performed. Survival was significantly better for HM3 patients (P < 0.01) in 458 matched patients, with a median follow-up of 23 months. Within the matched cohort, HM3 patients had a median age of 58 years, and 83% were male, 80% of the HVAD patients were male, with a median age of 59 years. PS-adjusted Cox regression confirmed a significantly better survival for HM3 patients when compared with HVAD, with a HR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.14-1.85, P < 0.01). Pump thrombosis (P < 0.01) and ischaemic stroke (P < 0.01) occurred less in HM3 patients. No difference was found for haemorrhagic stroke, right heart failure, driveline infection, and major bleeding. Landmark-analysis confirmed a significant difference in conditional survival >2 years after implantation (P = 0.03). None of the pre-operative variable interactions in the Cox regression were significant.ConclusionsHM3 patients have a significantly better survival and a lower incidence of ischaemic strokes and pump thrombosis than HVAD patients. This survival difference persisted after 2 years of implantation. Additional research using post-operative variables is warranted to identify which HVAD patients need an upgrade to HM3 or expedited transplantation.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVADs) have been replacing intra-aortic balloon pumps for hemodynamic support during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), even though data supporting a benefit for hard clinical end points remain limited. We evaluated diffusion of PVADs across US markets and examined the association of market utilization of PVAD with mortality and cost.MethodsUsing the 2013 to 2019 Medicare data, we identified all patients aged ≥65 years who underwent PCI with either a PVAD or intra-aortic balloon pump. We used hospital referral region to define regional health care markets and categorized them in quartiles based on the proportional use of PVADs during PCI. Multilevel models were constructed to determine the association of patient, hospital, and market factors with utilization of PVADs and the association of PVAD utilization with 30-day mortality and cost.ResultsA total of 79 176 patients underwent PCI with either intra-aortic balloon pump (47 514 [60.0%]) or PVAD (31 662 [40.0%]). The proportion of PCI procedures with PVAD increased over time (17% in 2013 to 57% in 2019; P for trend, <0.001), such that PVADs overtook intra-aortic balloon pump for hemodynamic support during PCI in 2018. There was a large variation in PVAD utilization across markets (range, 0%-85%), which remained unchanged after adjustment of patient characteristics (median odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.91-2.17]). The presence of acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and emergent status was associated with a 45% to 50% lower odds of PVAD use suggesting that PVADs were less likely to be used in the sickest patients. Greater utilization of PVAD at the market level was not associated with lower risk mortality but was associated with higher cost.ConclusionsAlthough utilization of PVADs for PCI continues to increase, there is large variation in PVAD utilization across markets. Greater market utilization of PVADs was not associated with lower mortality but was associated with higher cost.

Dataset Information

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study.

Publications

Adverse Events of Percutaneous Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Devices-A Retrospective, Single-Centre Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets