Outcomes of modular cable exchange in HeartMate 3 patients versus conventional driveline repair in HeartMate II patients.

BACKGROUND: Driveline (DL) damages are a common difficulty among ventricular assist devices (VAD). Repairing the electrical fibers inside the DL on a running pump is hazardous and requires technical expertise, which is not easily available on site. A new feature of the HeartMate3 (Abbott, U.S.A.) LVAD is a modular driveline that allows an easy exchange of the DL cord. In this report we analyze our experiences with this feature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 302 patients who underwent either HeartMate II or HeartMate 3 implantation between February 2004 and September 2021. Patients were screened for driveline faults and need for exchange or repair of driveline or VAD exchange. Documented were baseline characteristics, reasons for DL or VAD exchange, and complications. Follow-up was three months after the procedure. RESULTS: We present a cohort of 302 patients who underwent either HMII (n = 107;35.4%) or HM 3 (n = 195; 64.5%) implantation. Out of those, 40 patients (40/302; 13.2%) required driveline repair (DLRe) or exchange (DLEx). Out of 107 HMII patients, 9 showed severe DL damages (9/107; 8.4%). Six patients (6/9; 66.6%) underwent DLRe, two patients (2/6; 33.3%) required VAD exchange after DLRe, one patient (1/2;50%) experienced emergency VAD exchange after pump stop. The DLRe procedure in the other four patients (4/6; 66.6%) was successful. Due to damage to the internal driveline two patients (2/9; 22.2%) underwent emergency device exchange and one patient (1/9;11.1%) was listed for transplantation. 31 out 195 HM3 patients underwent exchange of the modular DL. In none of the cases, damages of the internal fibers were the reasons for the exchange. In 100% of the cases, damages of the external coating were the reason for DL exchange. In none of the cases, complications occurred after the exchange procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Driveline damages are a habitual, recurrent complication in VAD patients. The exchange of the modular driveline cable of the HM3 is feasible and safe compared to the conventional DL repair in HMII patients. Risky repair attempts and surgical LVAD exchange due to major damages of the electrical fibers can be avoided successfully by the new feature of HM3 driveline.

Is there a sex gap in outcomes of comparable patients supported with left ventricular assist devices?

OBJECTIVES: Historically, females were described as suffering from worse outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. However, females' preoperative conditions are unique, making direct comparisons with males challenging. This study aimed to select through propensity score (PS) matching two preoperatively comparable populations of females and males and test if any real sex-related difference exists regarding survival and adverse events after LVAD implantation. METHODS: This retrospective single-center observational study investigated patients who received LVAD implantation between 2010 and 2018. PS matching was applied to balance preoperative heterogeneity between males and females. Primary endpoint was survival at follow-up. Secondary endpoints included perioperative outcomes and LVAD-related adverse events. RESULTS: 92 fully comparable females(n = 46) and males(n = 46) were selected after PS matching (median age:57 years, min-max:18-75). 26.1% of patients required preoperative mechanical circulatory support. Females needed more intraoperative fresh frozen plasma (p < 0.001) and platelets transfusions (p = 0.008) compared to males, but postoperative outcomes were comparable between groups. In-hospital, 1 and 2-year survival were 78.3%, 69.6% and 65.2%, respectively, with no differences between groups. Survival probability remained comparable up to 8 years of follow-up (p = 0.35). Overall, females showed a higher rate of strokes (p = 0.039) compared to males in the follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: After reducing preoperative heterogeneity between females and males, survival after LVAD implantation does not differ based on sex. However, differences might exist in terms of higher transfusions and strokes in females. Reducing preoperative sex disparities and developing intraoperative and anticoagulation strategies which acknowledge sex-related variations might help abolishing differences in LVAD outcomes.

Telemonitoring and Care Program for Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients During COVID-19 Outbreak: A European Experience.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) radically modified the organization of healthcare systems with shutdown of routine activities and outpatient clinics. Herein, we report our institutional experience with a Telemonitoring and Care Program (TC-Program) to monitor and support left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients during COVID-19 outbreak. This single-arm cohort study analyzed 156 patients who entered the TC-Program at our institution between April and August 2020. The TC-Program was based on routine phone calls to patients and a 24/7 emergency line. In November 2020, patients were asked for feedback on the TC-Program and checked for survival, transplant, or explant. The primary endpoint was the rate of TC-Program-driven interventions. Patients (males: 82.8%) were 61 years old (interquartile range [IQR]: 53.0-67.5) and on LVAD support for 1,266 days (IQR: 475-2,211). Patients were included in the TC-Program for a median time of 99 days (min:15, max:120) and received a median number of six phone calls (min:1, max:14). Twenty-three patients (14.7%) were referred for clinical evaluation after phone contact. Two patients (1.27%) were diagnosed with COVID-19: one of them died after intensive care, and one remained paucisymptomatic and recovered. Three patients asked to exit the program considering it not useful while the others gave high rates in terms of usefulness (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), information (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), good medical care (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), and psychologic support (median: 8, IQR: 7-10). A TC-Program based on the four ICSA principles (Inform, Care, Support, and Adapt) is feasible in LVAD patients and can be rapidly implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Lateral Thoracotomy for Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis of Literature.

The use of lateral thoracotomy (LT) for implanting left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is worldwide increasing, although the available evidence for its positive effects compared with conventional sternotomy (CS) is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzes the outcomes of LT compared with CS in patients undergoing implantation of a centrifugal continuous-flow LVAD. Four databases and 1,053 publications were screened until December 2019. Articles including patients undergoing implantation of a centrifugal continuous-flow LVAD through LT were included. A meta-analysis to compare LT and CS was performed to summarize evidences from studies including both LT and CS patients extracted from the same population. Primary outcome measure was in-hospital or 30-day mortality. Eight studies reporting on 730 patients undergoing LVAD implantation through LT (n = 242) or CS (n = 488) were included in the meta-analysis. Left thoracotomy showed lower in-hospital/30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.520, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.99, p = 0.050), shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (mean difference [MD]: 3.29, CI: 1.76-4.82, p < 0.001), lower incidence of severe right heart failure (OR: 0.41; CI: 0.19-0.87, p = 0.020) and postoperative right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation (OR: 0.27, CI: 0.10-0.76, p = 0.010), fewer perioperative transfusions (MD: 0.75, CI: 0.36-1.14, p < 0.001), and lower incidence of renal failure (OR: 0.45, CI: 0.20-1.01, p = 0.050) and device-related infections (OR: 0.45, CI: 0.20-1.01, p = 0.050), respectively. This meta-analysis demonstrates that implantation of a centrifugal continuous-flow LVAD system via LT benefits from higher short-term survival, less right heart failure, lower postoperative RVAD need, shorter ICU stay, less transfusions, lower risk of device-related infections and kidney failure. Prospective studies are needed for further proof.

Pharmacy Technicians' Perception About Symptoms and Concerns of Older Patients Visiting Pharmacies: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Older patients are still not sufficiently integrated into multidisciplinary care concepts including geriatric and palliative care. They do, however, regularly visit pharmacies to fill prescriptions or to buy self-medication. Thus, they have frequent contact with pharmacy technicians (PTs), who are widely involved in counselling in Germany. However, it is not known whether geriatric symptoms are recognized by PTs and to what extent older patients use their pharmacy to address geriatric or palliative concerns. This study aimed to investigate PTs' impression of older patients' symptoms, geriatric and palliative concerns in consultations, as well as multidisciplinary collaboration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in April-May 2019. Using a self-administered questionnaire, PTs were asked about (i) geriatric symptoms, (ii) geriatric and palliative concerns older patients expressed in routine consultations, (iii) supposed reasons for inadequate care, and (iv) PTs' desire for multidisciplinary cooperation. RESULTS: (i) The 5 most common symptoms the 339 participating PTs recognized in the community pharmacy were pain, insomnia, restricted mobility, eye disorders, and constipation. (ii) The three most frequently addressed non-drug-related geriatric palliative concerns were mental strain, loneliness, and mourning. (iii) As reasons for inadequate patient care, PTs predominantly mentioned patient-related reasons (299 of 518 reasons, 58%). (iv) 85% of the PTs desired closer cooperation with general practitioners, 84% with nursing services and 39% with palliative physicians. CONCLUSION: PTs frequently saw older patients visiting the pharmacy who suffer from a variety of symptoms. PTs were additionally confronted with diverse geriatric or palliative concerns. We deduce, first, a need for PT training in geriatric and palliative care. Second, multidisciplinary care concepts and research should include pharmacies because they seem to be a low-threshold contact to older patients, who might need access to adequate care.

Flying after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Literature on the air travel activities of patients supported by permanent mechanical assist devices is rare. To the best of our knowledge, no air travel guidelines or fitness prerequisites exist on whether and when ventricular assist device (VAD) patients are allowed to travel by plane after device implantation. In this study, we evaluated the topic of air travel after VAD implantation. This working group aimed to produce a report on air travel passengers supported by VADs, regarding their fitness to fly. Fifty left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients were surveyed in a worldwide multicenter study. The single survey was performed with a multimethod design, including interviews conducted face-to-face, online, and on phone. Out of 50 patients, 97% described their traveling by aircraft as perfect and uneventful during the flight. Eighty-five percent of the study participants consulted their medical practitioner before the flight. No patient reported the occurrence of a severe condition associated with flying. LVAD alarms, especially low flow alarms, did not occur in any of the devices. Thirty-five percent of the surveyed patients, however, stated a major problem pertaining to the security check procedures at the airport. The results of this study suggest that commercial air travel is safe for stable patients on permanent VAD support and traveling can be resumed securely after VAD implantation. Conscientious preparation by packing necessary devices, fluids, medications, and careful preparation for the airport security check is recommended.