Outcomes of biventricular mechanical support patients discharged to home to await heart transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices has grown rapidly in recent years for patients with end-stage heart failure. A significant proportion of patients require both left- and right-sided support with biventricular assist devices (BiVADs) as a bridge to transplantation. Traditionally, these patients have waited in the hospital until they receive a transplant. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical course of BiVAD patients discharged to home to await heart transplantation. METHODS: Between November 2009 and July 2011, 24 adult patients underwent Thoratec paracorporeal BiVAD placement at the University of California Los Angeles, all with an Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support score 1 or 2. The disposition, complications, and rehospitalizations of these subjects were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Fourteen of the 24 patients were successfully discharged to home, with a mean time of 60 ± 27 days from BiVAD implantation to discharge. Ninety-three percent (13/14) of the patients sent home went on to be transplanted. Eleven of the 14 (79%) came in from home to receive their transplant. The mean time from BiVAD implantation to transplantation was 100 ± 65 days. Of the 14 patients discharged to home, there were 18 readmissions in 8 patients. CONCLUSION: In this small single-center review, we found that complex medical patients with BiVADs can be discharged to home and can await a heart transplant from home under the close management of multidisciplinary acute care and outpatient teams.

Early planned institution of biventricular mechanical circulatory support results in improved outcomes compared with delayed conversion of a left ventricular assist device to a biventricular assist device.

OBJECTIVE: It is generally accepted that patients who require biventricular assist device support have poorer outcomes than those requiring isolated left ventricular assist device support. However, it is unknown how the timing of biventricular assist device insertion affects outcomes. We hypothesized that planned biventricular assist device insertion improves survival compared with delayed conversion of left ventricular assist device support to biventricular assist device support. METHODS: We reviewed and compared outcomes of 266 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device or biventricular assist device placement at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1995 to June 2007. We subdivided patients receiving biventricular assist devices into planned biventricular assist device (P-BiVAD) and delayed biventricular assist device (D-BiVAD) groups based on the timing of right ventricular assist device insertion. We defined the D-BiVAD group as any failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support. RESULTS: Of 266 patients who received left ventricular assist devices, 99 (37%) required biventricular assist device support. We compared preoperative characteristics, successful bridging to transplantation, survival to hospital discharge, and Kaplan-Meier 1-year survival between the P-BiVAD (n = 71) and D-BiVAD (n = 28) groups. Preoperative comparison showed that patients who ultimately require biventricular support have similar preoperative status. Left ventricular assist device (n = 167) outcomes in all categories exceeded both P-BiVAD and D-BiVAD group outcomes. Furthermore, patients in the P-BiVAD group had superior survival to discharge than patients in the D-BiVAD group (51% vs 29%, P < .05). One-year and long-term Kaplan-Meier survival distribution confirmed this finding. There was also a trend toward improved bridging to transplantation in the P-BiVAD (n = 55) versus D-BiVAD (n = 22) groups (65% vs 45%, P = .10). CONCLUSION: When patients at high risk for failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support are identified, proceeding directly to biventricular assist device implantation is advised because early institution of biventricular support results in dramatic improvement in survival.

Risk score derived from pre-operative data analysis predicts the need for biventricular mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) failure after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement is a serious complication and is difficult to predict. In the era of destination therapy and the total artificial heart, predicting post-LVAD RV failure requiring mechanical support is extremely important. METHODS: We reviewed patient characteristics, laboratory values and hemodynamic data from 266 patients who underwent LVAD placement at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1995 to June 2007. RESULTS: Of 266 LVAD recipients, 99 required RV assist device (BiVAD) placement (37%). We compared 36 parameters between LVAD (n = 167) and BiVAD patients (n = 99) to determine pre-operative risk factors for RV assist device (RVAD) need. By univariate analysis, 23 variables showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < or = 0.05). By multivariate logistic regression, cardiac index < or =2.2 liters/min/m(2) (odds ratio [OR] 5.7), RV stroke work index < or =0.25 mm Hg . liter/m(2) (OR 5.1), severe pre-operative RV dysfunction (OR 5.0), pre-operative creatinine > or =1.9 mg/dl (OR 4.8), previous cardiac surgery (OR 4.5) and systolic blood pressure < or =96 mm Hg (OR 2.9) were the best predictors of RVAD need. CONCLUSIONS: The most significant predictors for RVAD need were cardiac index, RV stroke work index, severe pre-operative RV dysfunction, creatinine, previous cardiac surgery and systolic blood pressure. Using these data, we constructed an algorithm that can predict which LVAD patients will require RVAD with >80% sensitivity and specificity.

Chest radiographic and computed tomographic findings of the temporary total artificial heart (TAH-t).

We describe the chest radiographic and computed tomographic appearances of the temporary total artificial heart in 2 patients.