Clinical outcomes associated with INTERMACS-defined right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: LaRue SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272542 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBoth stroke and right heart failure (RHF) are common and serious complications after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The objective of this study was to evaluate relation between stroke and RHF early after LVAD implantation.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study. From January 2012 to December 2020, patients who underwent LVAD implantation in a single-center were enrolled. Patients with a non-dischargeable LVAD or without follow-up data were excluded. Early stroke was defined as a stroke event within 6 months after implantation. Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) definition was used for the diagnosis of RHF.ResultsA total of 70 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Sixty-seven patients (95.7%) were successfully discharged and 16 patients (22.9%) died during follow-up. 14 patients (20.0%) experienced a stroke within 6 months after implantation, and 0.28 stroke events per patient-year occurred during follow-up. Postoperative RHF was more common in the stroke group (64.3% vs. 23.2%, P=0.008) and the median time from implantation to RHF was 1 day. In the Cox multivariable analysis, postoperative RHF [hazard ratio (HR): 5.063; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.682-15.245; P=0.004], and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) on postoperative day (POD) 1 (HR: 0.923; 95% CI: 0.858-0.992; P=0.030) were independent predictors for early stroke. A CPP of 62 mmHg (sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 59.3%) was the cutoff value for early stroke according to the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.ConclusionsRHF after LVAD implantation may be a risk factor for early stroke. Prevention and management of postoperative RHF with adequate CPP could prevent early stroke after LVAD implantation.
| S-EPMC10797350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations increases every year, particularly LVADs for destination therapy (DT). Right ventricular failure (RVF) has been recognized as a serious complication of LVAD implantation. Reported incidence of RVF after LVAD ranges from 6% to 44%, varying mostly due to differences in RVF definition, different types of LVADs, and differences in patient populations included in studies. RVF complicating LVAD implantation is associated with worse postoperative mortality and morbidity including worse end-organ function, longer hospital length of stay, and lower success of bridge to transplant (BTT) therapy. Importance of RVF and its predictors in a setting of LVAD implantation has been recognized early, as evidenced by abundant number of attempts to identify independent risk factors and develop RVF predictor scores with a common purpose to improve patient selection and outcomes by recognizing potential need for biventricular assist device (BiVAD) at the time of LVAD implantation. The aim of this article is to review and summarize current body of knowledge on risk factors and prediction scores of RVF after LVAD implantation. Despite abundance of studies and proposed risk scores for RVF following LVAD, certain common limitations make their implementation and clinical usefulness questionable. Regardless, value of these studies lies in providing information on potential key predictors for RVF that can be taken into account in clinical decision making. Further investigation of current predictors and existing scores as well as new studies involving larger patient populations and more sophisticated statistical prediction models are necessary. Additionally, a short description of our empirical institutional approach to management of RVF following LVAD implantation is provided.
| S-EPMC4295071 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7451932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective Investigate the safety and efficacy of preoperative levosimendan in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Methods Consecutive patients who received LVADs (HeartMate-2, 3, HVAD) in a single tertiary medical center (2012–2018). INTERMACS profile 1 patients were excluded. The primary outcome was post-LVAD right ventricular failure (RVF) and inhospital mortality rates. The secondary outcomes included other clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters at follow-up. Results Final cohort consisted of 62 patients (40[65%] in the levosimendan group and 22[35%] in the no-levosimendan group). Post-operative RVF rate and inotrope or ventilation support time were similar in the levosimendan and no-levosimendan groups (7.5% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.43, median of 51 vs. 72 h; P = 0.41 and 24 vs. 27 h; P = 0.19, respectively). Length of hospitalization, both total and in the intensive care unit, was not statistically significant (median days of 13 vs. 16; P = 0.34, and 3 vs. 4; P = 0.44, respectively). Post-operative laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and in-hospital complication rate did not differ between the groups, despite worse baseline clinical parameters in the Levosimendan group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital and long term mortality rate (2.5% vs. 4.5%; P > 0.999 and 10% vs. 27.3% respectively; P = 0.64). Conclusions Levosimendan infusion prior to LVAD implantation was safe and associated with comparable results without significant improved post-operative outcomes, including RVF. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13019-022-01915-6.
| S-EPMC9205013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF.MethodsPatients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes.ResultsAmong 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001).ConclusionsRHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.
| S-EPMC9233112 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPerioperative mortality and complications still remain high after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, especially in highly compromised patient cohorts. Here, we evaluate the effects of preoperative Levosimendan therapy on peri- and postoperative outcomes after LVAD implantation.MethodsWe retrospectively analysed 224 consecutive patients with LVAD implantation for end-stage heart failure between November 2010 and December 2019 in our centre with regard to short- and longer-term mortality as well as incidence of postoperative right ventricular failure (RV-F). Out of these, 117 (52.2%) received preoperative i.v. Levosimendan therapy within 7 days before LVAD implantation (Levo group).ResultsIn-hospital, 30-day and 5-year mortality was comparable (in-hospital mortality: 18.8% vs 23.4%, P = 0.40; 30-day mortality: 12.0% vs 14.0%, P = 0.65; Levo vs control group). However, in the multivariate analysis, preoperative Levosimendan therapy significantly reduced postoperative RV-F but increased postoperative vasoactive inotropic score ([RV-F: odds ratio 2.153, confidence interval 1.146-4.047, P = 0.017; vasoactive inotropic score 24 h post-surgery: odds ratio 1.023, confidence interval 1.008-1.038, P = 0.002). These results were further confirmed by 1:1 propensity score matching of 74 patients in each group. Especially in the subgroup of patients with normal preoperative RV function, the prevalence of postoperative RV-F was significantly lower in the Levo- group as compared to the control group (17.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.03; respectively).ConclusionsPreoperative Levosimendan therapy reduces the risk of postoperative RV-F, especially in patients with normal preoperative RV function without effects on mortality up to 5 years after LVAD implantation.
| S-EPMC9931070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation increases morbidity and mortality. We investigated the association between intraoperative right heart hemodynamic data, echocardiographic parameters, and severe versus nonsevere RVF.MethodsA review of LVAD patients between March 2013 and March 2016 was performed. Severe RVF was defined by the need for a right ventricular mechanical support device, inotropic, and/or inhaled pulmonary vasodilator requirements for >14 days. From a chart review, the right ventricular failure risk score was calculated and right heart hemodynamic data were collected. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) [(pulmonary artery systolic pressure - pulmonary artery diastolic pressure)/central venous pressure (CVP)] was calculated for 2 periods: (1) 30 minutes before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and (2) after chest closure. Echocardiographic data were recorded pre-CPB and post-CPB by a blinded reviewer. Univariate logistic regression models were used to examine the performance of hemodynamic and echocardiographic metrics.ResultsA total of 110 LVAD patients were identified. Twenty-five did not meet criteria for RVF. Of the remaining 85 patients, 28 (33%) met criteria for severe RVF. Hemodynamic factors associated with severe RVF included: higher CVP values after chest closure (18 ± 9 vs 13 ± 5 mm Hg; P = .0008) in addition to lower PAPi pre-CPB (1.2 ± 0.6 vs 1.7 ± 1.0; P = .04) and after chest closure (0.9 ± 0.5 vs 1.5 ± 0.8; P = .0008). Post-CPB echocardiographic findings associated with severe RVF included: larger right atrial diameter major axis (5.4 ± 0.9 vs 4.9 ± 1.0 cm; P = .03), larger right ventricle end-systolic area (22.6 ± 8.4 vs 18.5 ± 7.9 cm; P = .03), lower fractional area of change (20.2 ± 10.8 vs 25.9 ± 12.6; P = .04), and lower tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (0.9 ± 0.2 vs 1.1 ± 0.3 cm; P = .008). Right ventricular failure risk score was not a significant predictor of severe RVF. Post-chest closure CVP and post-chest closure PAPi discriminated severe from nonsevere RVF better than other variables measured, each with an area under the curve of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.64-0.86).ConclusionsPost-chest closure values of CVP and PAPi were significantly associated with severe RVF. Echocardiographic assessment of RV function post-CPB was weakly associated with severe RVF.
| S-EPMC7908049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.
| S-EPMC9671519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study examined patient outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation across a range of center surgical volumes.BackgroundIn order for a center to qualify for reimbursement, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires it to implant ≥10 LVADs or total artificial hearts over a 3-year period. The impact of center LVAD surgical volumes on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly scrutinized.MethodsCenter volumes were provided for 7,416 patients undergoing LVAD implantation who were enrolled in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). Center LVAD volume was categorized as either very low (≤10 implants/year, n = 617), low (11 to 30 implants/year, n = 2,561), medium (31 to 50 implants/year, n = 2,458), or high (>50 implants/year, n = 1,750). The main outcome of interest was patient survival based on center volume derived from Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression.ResultsOverall survival was associated with center volume (p = 0.003), as follows: 71 ± 1.8% (very low volume), 81 ± 0.8% (low volume), 83 ± 0.8% (medium volume), and 79 ± 1.0% (high volume) at 1 year. Compared with medium volume centers, the 90-day mortality was higher in very low volume (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35; p = 0.04) and high volume (OR: 1.28; p = 0.018) VAD centers. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 1.56), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.21), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.30) for very low, low, and high volume centers, respectively. Center volume did not predict mortality (p = 0.25; n = 3,688) in INTERMACS profile 1 patients (patients who had sustained cardiogenic shock) and profile 2 patients (patients with progressive hemodynamic decline despite inotropes).ConclusionsCenter volume correlates with post-VAD survival, with worse survival noted at very-low volume centers. These findings suggest that current U.S. VAD center standards warrant reconsideration.
| S-EPMC8453659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Molecular analysis of the effect left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has on congestive heart failure patients. Keywords = Congestive heart failure, left ventricular assist device, eNOS, gene, dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase Keywords: other
2003-09-01 | GSE430 | GEO