Dataset Information

Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

ABSTRACT: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock have high mortality with conventional management.This study evaluated outcomes of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).Patients in the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry who underwent VAD placement in the setting of AMI were included and compared with patients who received VAD for non-AMI indications.VAD were implanted in 502 patients with AMI: 443 left ventricular assist devices; 33 biventricular assist devices; and 26 total artificial hearts. Median age was 58.3 years, and 77.1% were male. At implantation, 66% were INTERMACS profile 1. A higher proportion of AMI than non-AMI patients had pre-operative intra-aortic balloon pumps (57.6% vs. 25.3%; p < 0.01), intubation (58% vs. 8.3%; p < 0.01), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (17.9% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.01), cardiac arrest (33.5% vs. 3.3%, p < 0.01), and higher-acuity INTERMACS profiles. At 1 month post-VAD, 91.8% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 7.2% had died on device, and 1% had been transplanted. At 1-year post-VAD, 52% of AMI patients were alive with ongoing device support, 25.7% had been transplanted, 1.6% had left VAD explanted for recovery, and 20.7% had died on device. The AMI group had higher unadjusted early phase hazard (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.24; p = 0.04) and reduced late-phase hazard of death (HR: 0.57; p = 0.04) than the non-AMI group did. After accounting for established risk factors, the AMI group no longer had higher early mortality hazard (HR: 0.89; p = 0.30), but it had lower late mortality hazard (HR: 0.55; p = 0.02).Patients with AMI who receive VAD have outcomes similar to other VAD populations, despite being more critically ill pre-implantation. VAD therapy is an effective strategy for patients with AMI and acute heart failure or shock in whom medical therapy is failing.

SUBMITTER: Acharya D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4841917 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Acharya Deepak D Loyaga-Rendon Renzo Y RY Pamboukian Salpy V SV Tallaj José A JA Holman William L WL Cantor Ryan S RS Naftel David C DC Kirklin James K JK

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20160401 16

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock have high mortality with conventional management.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study evaluated outcomes of patients with AMI who received durable ventricular assist devices (VAD).<h4>Methods</h4>Patients in the INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) registry who underwent VAD placement in the setting of AMI were included and compared with pa ...[more]

PMID: 27102502

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConcern has been raised about consequences of including patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation in readmission and mortality measures.MethodsWe calculated unadjusted and hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of AMI or HF discharged between July 2010 and June 2013. Hospitals were compared before and after excluding LVAD and heart transplantation patients. LVAD indication was measured.ResultsIn the AMI mortality (n = 506,543) and readmission (n = 526,309) cohorts, 1,166 and 1,016 patients received an LVAD while 3 and 2 had a heart transplantation, respectively. In the HF mortality (n = 1,015,335) and readmission (n = 1,254,124) cohorts, 789 and 931 received an LVAD, while 212 and 202 received a heart transplantation, respectively. Less than 2% of hospitals had either ≥6 patients who received an LVAD or, independently, had ≥1 heart transplantation. The AMI mortality and readmission cohorts used 1.8% and 2.8% of LVADs for semi-permanent/permanent indications, versus 73.8% and 78.0% for HF patients, respectively. The rest were for temporary/external indications. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without LVAD patients versus hospitals with ≥6 LVADs was 14.8% and 14.3%, and RSRR was 17.8% and 18.3%, respectively; the HF cohort RSMR was 11.9% and 9.7% and RSRR was 22.6% and 23.4%, respectively. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without versus with heart transplantation patients was 14.7% and 13.9% and RSRR was 17.8% and 17.7%, respectively; in the HF cohort, RSMR was 11.9% and 11.0%, and RSRR was 22.6% and 22.6%, respectively. Estimations changed ≤0.1% after excluding LVAD or heart transplantation patients.ConclusionHospitals caring for ≥6 patients with LVAD or ≥1 heart transplantation typically had a trend toward lower RSMRs but higher RSRRs. Rates were insignificantly changed when these patients were excluded. LVADs were primarily for acute-care in the AMI cohort and chronic support in the HF cohort. LVAD and heart transplantation patients are a distinct group with differential care requirements and outcomes, thus should be considered separately from the rest of the HF cohort.

Dataset Information

Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Publications

Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets