Unplanned hospital readmissions following HeartMate 3 implantation: Readmission rates, causes, and impact on survival.

BACKGROUND: Hospital readmissions following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remain a frequent comorbidity, associated with decreased quality of life and increased resources utilization. This study sought to determine causes, predictors, and impact on survival of hospitalizations during HeartMate 3 (HM3) support. METHODS: All patients implanted with HM3 between November 2014 to December 2019 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center were consecutively enrolled in the study. Demographics and clinical characteristics from the index admission and the first outpatient visit were collected and used to estimate 1-year and 900-day readmission-free survival and overall survival. Multivariable analysis was performed for subsequent readmissions. RESULTS: Of 182 patients who received a HM3 LVAD, 167 (92%) were discharged after index admission and experienced 407 unplanned readmissions over the median follow up of 727 (interquartile range (IQR): 410.5, 1124.5) days. One-year and 900-day mean cumulative number of all-cause unplanned readmissions was 0.43 (95%CI, 0.36, 0.51) and 1.13 (95%CI, 0.99, 1.29). The most frequent causes of rehospitalizations included major infections (29.3%), bleeding (13.2%), device-related (12.5%), volume overload (7.1%), and other (28%). One-year and 900-day survival free from all-cause readmission was 38% (95%CI, 31-46%) and 16.6% (95%CI, 10.3-24.4%). One-year and 900-day freedom from 2, 3, and ≥4 readmissions were 60.7%, 74%, 74.5% and 26.2%, 33.3%, 41.3%. One-year and 900-day survival were unaffected by the number of readmissions and remained >90%. Male sex, ischemic etiology, diabetes, lower serum creatinine, longer duration of index hospitalization, and a history of readmission between discharge and the first outpatient visit were associated with subsequent readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned hospital readmissions after HM3 are common, with infections and bleeding accounting for the majority of readmissions. Irrespective of the number of readmissions, one-year survival remained unaffected.

Long-Term Survival Benefits of Porcine versus Pericardial Bioprostheses in Elderly Patients Undergoing Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A 32-Year Study.

BACKGROUND: The elderly population is growing at an unprecedented rate. Aortic valve disease increases with age. Bioprostheses are the valves of choice for older patients; however, the optimal tissue valve remains undetermined. The purpose of this investigation was to perform a life-of-patient survival comparison of the prototypical porcine and pericardial prostheses in elderly patients. METHODS: The study population (N = 1480) consisted of patients 65 years of age and older who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement from 1990 through 2005 with a Carpentier-Edwards Porcine (n = 650) or Pericardial (n = 830) bioprosthesis. Propensity score-matched groups were created. RESULTS: Valve selection was not associated with operative mortality. Survival estimates at 10 years were better for Pericardial (41.8%; 95% CI: 37.9 to 45.7) than Porcine (32.6%; 95% CI: 28.8 to 36.3); and 5.2% (95% CI: 3.2 to 7.1) versus 2.0%; (95% CI: 0.8 to 3.2) at 20 years (p < 0.001). E-value analysis found minimal influence of unknown study confounders. Factors associated with long-term mortality were porcine valve (p < 0.001), age (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.001), preop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), peripheral artery disease (p = 0.011), congestive heart failure (p = 0.003), New York Heart Association Class III or IV (p = 0.004), surgical history-reoperation (p = 0.012), transient ischemic attack (p = 0.009), prolonged ventilation (p = 0.010), postop renal insufficiency (p < 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.009). The indexed Effective Orifice Area (EOAi) was assessed and did not influence observed long-term survival differences. CONCLUSIONS: This unusual lifetime study provided substantial evidence for the superiority of the pericardial over the porcine bioprosthesis in the aortic position in elderly patients. It demonstrated enhanced long-term survival benefits for elderly patients without any increase in perioperative mortality. It is intended to inform future investigation into aortic valve design.

Feasibility of veno-arterial extracorporeal life support in awake patients with cardiogenic shock.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to demonstrate outcomes of veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (VA-ECLS) in non-intubated ("awake") patients with cardiogenic shock, as very few studies have investigated safety and feasibility in this population. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 394 consecutive VA-ECLS patients at our institution from 2017 to 2021. We excluded patients cannulated for indications definitively associated with intubation. Patients were stratified by intubation status at time of cannulation and baseline differences were balanced by inverse probability of treatment weighting. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality while secondary outcomes included adverse events during ECLS and destination at discharge. RESULTS: Out of 135 patients in the final cohort, 79 were intubated and 56 were awake at time of cannulation. All awake patients underwent percutaneous femoral cannulation with technical success of 100% without intubation. Indications for VA-ECLS in awake patients included acute decompensated heart failure (64.3%), pulmonary hypertension or massive pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocarditis (8.9%), and acute myocardial infarction (5.4%). After adjustment, awake and intubated patients had similar ECLS duration (7 vs 6 days, p = 0.19), in-hospital mortality (39.6% vs 51.7%, p = 0.28), and rates of various adverse events. Intubation status was not a significant risk factor for 90-day mortality (HR [95% CI]: 1.26 [0.64, 2.45], p = 0.51) in multivariable analysis. Heart transplantation (15.1% vs 4.9%) and ventricular assist device (17.4% vs 2.2%) were more common destinations at discharge in awake patients than intubated patients (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Awake VA-ECLS is safe and feasible with comparable outcomes as intubated counterparts in select cardiogenic shock patients.