ABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure , Heart-Assist Devices , Patient Readmission , Humans , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Male , Female , Heart-Assist Devices/adverse effects , Middle Aged , Aged , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Adult , Risk Factors , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
Objective: This study assessed characteristics and outcomes of younger (18-65) versus older (>65) recipients of simultaneous heart-kidney (SHK) transplantation with varying functional dependence. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 1398 patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database who received SHK between 2010 and 2021. Patients who were <18 year old, underwent transplant of additional organs simultaneously, or had previous heart transplant were excluded. The primary end point was all-cause mortality, and secondary end points included adverse events and cause of death. Outcomes were also evaluated by propensity score-matched comparison. Results: The number of annual SHK transplantation in the United States has significantly increased among both age groups over the past 2 decades (P < .0001). After propensity score matching of recipients aged 18 to 65 years (n = 1162) versus age >65 years (n = 236), baseline characteristics were similar and well-balanced between the 2 cohorts. Between matched cohorts, older recipients did not have increased posttransplant mortality compared with younger recipients (90-day survival, P = .85; 7-year survival, P = .61). Multivariable Cox regression analysis found that age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.039 [0.975-1.106], P = .2415) and pretransplant functional status with interaction term for age (some assistance, HR, 0.965 [0.902-1.033], P = .3079; total assistance, HR, 0.976 [0.914-1.041], P = .4610) were not significant risk factors for 7-year post-SHK transplantation mortality. Conclusions: Older and more functionally dependent recipients in this study did not have increased post-SHK transplantation mortality. These findings have important implications for organ allocation among elderly patients, as they support the need for thorough assessment of SHK candidates in terms of comorbidities, rather than exclusion solely based on age and functional dependence.
ABSTRACT
While disparities in access to reconstruction persist, a comprehensive analysis comparing state-based outcomes and national patterns in breast reconstruction as a result of Medicaid expansion has never been examined. In this study, we investigated how breast reconstruction rates changed as a result of Medicaid expansion and compared these state-based findings to national counterparts. Patient data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project among states that chose to expand Medicaid were compared with those from states that did not expand. The difference-in-differences estimate of expansion to nonexpansion states was 7.05 (p = 0.10) for implant-based reconstruction, -11.56 (p = 0.01) for autologous reconstruction, and -7.08 (p = 0.18) for overall reconstruction. Comparing rates of nonexpansion states to national trends yielded estimates of -0.06 (p = 0.04), 0.06 (p = 0.01), and 0.004 (p = 0.90) for implant-based, autologous, and overall breast reconstruction, respectively. Similarly, comparing rates of expansion states to national trends yielded estimates of 0.02 (p = 0.38), -0.05 (p = 0.03), and -0.02 (p = 0.44) for implant-based, autologous, and overall breast reconstruction, respectively. In this study on national health policy, Medicaid expansion was associated with a significant increase in autologous rates while state-specific trends alone did not appear to predict the national outcomes of sweeping legislative changes that were differentially applied among states.
Subject(s)
Medicaid , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , United States , Humans , Health Care Costs , Health Services Accessibility , Insurance CoverageABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The benefits of mitral valve repair vs replacement are well documented. However, survival benefits in the elderly population are more controversial. In this novel lifetime analysis, we hypothesize that survival benefits for valve repair vs replacement in the elderly are sustained throughout the patient's lifetime. METHODS: From January 1985 through December 2005, 663 patients, aged ≥65 years with myxomatous degenerative mitral valve disease underwent primary isolated mitral valve repair (n = 434) or replacement (n = 229). Propensity score matching was used to balance variables potentially related to outcome. RESULTS: Follow-up was complete in 99.1% of mitral repair and 99.6% of mitral replacement patients. In matched patients, perioperative mortality was 3.9% (9 of 229) for repair and 10.9% (25 of 229) for replacement (P = .004). Survival estimates (95% confidence limits) from 29-year follow-up for matched patients were 54.6% (48.0%, 61.1%) and 11.0% (6.8%, 15.2%) at 10 years and 20 years for repair patients, and 34.2% (27.7%, 40.7%) and 3.7% (1%, 6.4%) for replacement patients, respectively. Median survival (95% confidence limits) was 11.3 years (9.6, 12.2 years) for repair patients compared with 6.9 years (6.3, 8.0 years) for replacement patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that although the elderly population is prone to multiple comorbidities, survival benefits of isolated mitral valve repair vs replacement are sustained throughout the patient's lifetime.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Mitral Valve Insufficiency , Humans , Aged , Mitral Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Propensity Score , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of adding open distal anastomosis to proximal aortic aneurysm repairs in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 1132 patients at our Aortic Center between 2005 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients diagnosed with a BAV who underwent proximal aortic aneurysm repair with open or clamped distal anastomosis. Exclusion criteria were patients without a BAV, age < 18 years, aortic arch diameter ≥ 4.5 cm, type A aortic dissection, previous ascending aortic replacement, ruptured aneurysm, and endocarditis. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio (220 clamped: 121 open repairs) on 18 variables was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 45.6 months (range 7.2-143.4 months). In the matched groups, no significant differences were observed between the respective open and clamped distal anastomosis groups for Kaplan Meier 10-year survival (86.9% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.05) and landmark survival analysis after 1 year (90.6%; vs. 93.3%; p = 0.39). Overall incidence of aortic arch-related reintervention was low (n = 3 total events). In-hospital complications were not significantly different in the open with respect to the clamped repair group, including in-hospital mortality (2.5% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.13) and stroke (0% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.54). In multivariable analysis, open distal anastomosis repair was not associated with long-term mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.98; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We found no significant inter-group differences in survival, reintervention, or in-hospital complication rates, with low rates of mortality, and aortic arch-related reintervention, suggesting adding open distal anastomosis may not provide benefit in BAV patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repairs.
Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm , Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease , Heart Valve Diseases , Humans , Adolescent , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Heart Valve Diseases/surgery , Treatment Outcome , Aortic Aneurysm/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Aneurysm/surgery , Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease/complications , Retrospective Studies , Anastomosis, SurgicalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices commonly lead to aortic regurgitation, which results in decreased pump efficiency and worsening heart failure. We hypothesized that non-physiological wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index alter the abundance of structural proteins in aortic valves of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients. METHODS: Doppler images of aortic valves of patients undergoing heart transplants were obtained. Eight patients had been supported with LVADs, whereas 10 were not. Aortic valve tissue was collected and protein levels were analyzed using mass spectrometry. Echocardiographic images were analyzed and wall shear stress and oscillatory shear index were calculated. The relationship between normalized levels of individual proteins and in vivo echocardiographic measurements was evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 57 proteins of interest, there was a strong negative correlation between levels of 15 proteins and the wall shear stress (R < -0.500, p ≤ 0.05), and a moderate negative correlation between 16 proteins and wall shear stress (R -0.500 to -0.300, p ≤ 0.05). Gene ontology analysis demonstrated clusters of proteins involved in cellular structure. Proteins negatively correlated with WSS included those with cytoskeletal, actin/myosin, cell-cell junction and extracellular functions. C: In aortic valve tissue, 31 proteins were identified involved in cellular structure and extracellular junctions with a negative correlation between their levels and wall shear stress. These findings suggest an association between the forces acting on the aortic valve (AV) and leaflet protein abundance, and may form a mechanical basis for the increased risk of aortic leaflet degeneration in LVAD patients.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Insufficiency , Heart Transplantation , Heart-Assist Devices , Humans , Aortic Valve/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Valve/surgery , Heart-Assist Devices/adverse effects , Aortic Valve Insufficiency/etiology , Aorta , Heart Transplantation/adverse effectsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the profile of patients with multiorgan failure listed for simultaneous cardiac transplantation and secondary organ. In addition, few studies have reported how these patients are bridged with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In this study, we examined national data of patients listed for multiorgan transplantation and their outcomes after bridging with or without MCS. METHODS: United Network for Organ Sharing data were reviewed for adult multiorgan transplantations from 1986 to 2019. Post-transplant patients and total waitlist listings were examined and stratified according to MCS status. Survival was assessed via Cox regression in the post-transplant cohort and Fine-Gray competing risk regression with transplantation as a competing risk in the waitlist cohort. RESULTS: There were 4534 waitlist patients for multiorgan transplant during the study period, of whom 2117 received multiorgan transplants. There was no significant difference in post-transplant survival between the MCS types and those without MCS in the whole cohort and heart-kidney subgroup. Fine-Gray competing risk regression showed that patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation had significantly greater waitlist mortality compared with those without MCS when controlling for preoperative characteristics (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-3.47; P < .001), whereas those bridged with a ventricular assist device had a decreased incidence of death compared with those without MCS (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.96; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: MCS, as currently applied, does not appear to compromise the survival of multiorgan heart transplant patients. Waitlist data show that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients have profoundly worse survival irrespective of preoperative factors including organ type listed. Survival on the waitlist for multiorgan transplant has improved across device eras.
Subject(s)
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Heart Failure , Heart Transplantation , Heart-Assist Devices , Adult , Humans , Treatment Outcome , Heart Transplantation/adverse effects , Waiting Lists , Retrospective Studies , Heart Failure/surgeryABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Bioprosthesis , Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation , Heart Valve Prosthesis , Renal Insufficiency , Humans , Aged , Animals , Swine , Aortic Valve/surgery , Prosthesis Design , Survival Rate , Reoperation , Follow-Up Studies , Prosthesis FailureABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Implantation of a transcatheter valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) has emerged as an alternative to traditional surgical mitral valve (MV) replacement. Previous studies evaluating ViMAC aggregated transseptal, transapical, and transatrial forms of the procedure, leaving uncertainty about each technique's advantages and disadvantages. Thus, we sought to evaluate clinical outcomes specifically for transatrial ViMAC from the largest multicenter registry to-date. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic MV dysfunction and severe MAC who underwent ViMAC were enrolled from 12 centers across the United States and Europe. Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and clinical outcomes were abstracted from the electronic record. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: We analyzed 126 patients who underwent ViMAC (median age 76 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 70-82 years], 28.6% female, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 6.8% [IQR, 4.0-11.4], and median follow-up 89 days [IQR, 16-383.5]). Sixty-one (48.4%) had isolated mitral stenosis, 25 (19.8%) had isolated mitral regurgitation (MR), and 40 (31.7%) had mixed MV disease. Technical success was achieved in 119 (94.4%) patients. Thirty (23.8%) patients underwent concurrent septal myectomy, and 8 (6.3%) patients experienced left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (7/8 did not undergo myectomy). Five (4.2%) patients of 118 with postprocedure echocardiograms had greater than mild paravalvular leak. Thirty-day and 1-year all-cause mortality occurred in 16 and 33 patients, respectively. In multivariable models, moderate or greater MR at baseline was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-4.99, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Transatrial ViMAC is safe and feasible in this selected, male-predominant cohort. Patients with significant MR may derive less benefit from ViMAC than patients with mitral stenosis only.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As cardiac re-transplantation is associated with inferior outcomes compared with primary transplantation, allocating scarce resources to appropriate re-transplant candidates is important. The aim of this study is to elucidate the factors associated with 1-year mortality in cardiac re-transplantation using the random forests algorithm for survival analysis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing registry and identified all adult (> 17 years old) recipients who underwent cardiac re-transplantation between January 2000 and March 2020. The random forest algorithm on Cox modeling was used to calculate the variable importance (VIMP) of independent variables for contributing to 1-year mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1294 patients underwent cardiac re-transplantation. Of these, 137 patients were re-transplanted within 1 year of their first transplant, while 1157 patients were re-transplanted more than 1 year after their first transplant. One-year mortality was significantly higher for patients receiving early transplantation compared with those receiving late transplantation (Early 40.6% vs. Late 13.6%, log-rank P < .001). Machine learning analysis showed that total bilirubin (> 2 mg/dl) (VIMP, 2.99%) was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality after early re-transplant. High BMI (> 30.0 kg/m2 ) (VIMP, 1.43%) and ventilator dependence (VIMP, 1.47%) were independent predictors of 1-year mortality for the late re-transplantation group. CONCLUSION: Machine learning showed that optimal 1-year survival following cardiac re-transplantation was significantly related to liver function in early re-transplantation, and to obesity and preoperative ventilator dependence in late re-transplantation.
Subject(s)
Heart Transplantation , Adolescent , Adult , Bilirubin , Humans , Machine Learning , Retrospective Studies , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
The 2021 Coronary Artery Disease revascularization guidelines of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) provide recommendations for managing nonculprit arteries in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although staged revascularization is preferred, at times same-setting intervention, coronary artery bypass surgery, or medical therapy may be preferable. These cases exemplify clinical scenarios for treating nonculprit arteries in STEMI. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), such as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is an important and serious postoperative complication after heart transplantation. We sought to characterize in-hospital VTE after heart transplantation and its association with clinical outcomes. METHOD: Adult (â§18 years) patients undergoing heart transplantation from 2015 to 2019 at our center were retrospectively reviewed. Post-transplant VTE was defined as newly diagnosed venous system thrombus by imaging studies. RESULTS: There were 254 patients. The cohort's median age was 55 years. A total of 61 patients were diagnosed with VTE, including one with right atrial thrombus, 54 with upper extremity DVT in which one patient subsequently developed PE, four with lower extremity DVT, and two with upper and lower extremity DVT. The cumulative incidence of VTE was 42% at 60-days of post heart transplant. Patients with VTE had longer hospital stay (P < .001), higher in-hospital mortality (P = .010), and worse 5-year survival (P = .009). On the multivariable Cox analysis, history of DVT/PE and intubation for more than 3 days were associated with an increased risk of in hospital VTE. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VTE in heart transplant recipients is high. Post-transplant surveillance, and appropriate preventive measures and treatment strategies after diagnosis are warranted.
Subject(s)
Heart Transplantation , Pulmonary Embolism , Venous Thromboembolism , Venous Thrombosis , Adult , Heart Transplantation/adverse effects , Humans , Incidence , Middle Aged , Pulmonary Embolism/epidemiology , Pulmonary Embolism/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thrombosis/complications , Venous Thrombosis/etiologyABSTRACT
Objectives: There are few data to delineate the risk differences among open aortic procedures. We aimed to investigate the influence of the procedural types on the outcomes of proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. Methods: Among 1900 patients who underwent aortic replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2019, 1132 patients with aortic aneurysm who underwent a graft replacement of proximal thoracic aorta were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the extent of the aortic replacement: isolated ascending aortic replacement (n = 52); ascending aortic replacement with distal extension with hemiarch, partial arch, or total arch replacement (n = 126); ascending aortic replacement with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement (n = 620); and ascending aortic replacement with distal and proximal extension (n = 334). "Eventful recovery," defined as occurrence of any key complications, was used as the primary end point. Odds ratios for inability to achieve uneventful recovery in each procedure were calculated using ascending aortic replacement as a reference. Results: Overall, in-hospital mortality and stroke occurred in 16 patients (1.4%) and 24 patients (2.1%). Eventful recovery was observed in 19.7% of patients: 11.5% in those with ascending aortic replacement, 36.5% in those with partial arch or total arch replacement, 16.6% in those with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement, and 20.4% in those with distal and proximal extension (P < .001). With ascending aortic replacement as the reference, a multivariable logistic regression revealed partial arch or total arch replacement (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-189.5) was an independent risk factor of inability to achieve uneventful recovery. Conclusions: Open proximal aneurysm repair in the contemporary era resulted in satisfactory in-hospital outcomes. Distal extension was associated with a higher risk for postoperative complications.
ABSTRACT
AIM: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.
Subject(s)
Cardiology/standards , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Myocardial Revascularization/standards , American Heart Association , Humans , Myocardial Revascularization/methods , United StatesABSTRACT
AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Myocardial Revascularization/standards , Algorithms , American Heart Association , Decision Making, Shared , Diabetes Mellitus , Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy , Humans , Myocardial Revascularization/methods , Patient Care Team , Risk Assessment , United StatesABSTRACT
Stroke has potentially devastating consequences for patients receiving veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane support (VA-ECMO). Arterial cannulation sites for VA-ECMO include the ascending aorta, axillary artery, and femoral artery. However, the influence of cannulation site on stroke risk has not been well described. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between occurrence and patterns of stroke with ECMO arterial cannulation sites. We retrospectively reviewed 414 consecutive patients who received VA-ECMO support for cardiogenic shock between March 2007 and May 2018. Patients were categorized by cannulation strategy. The rates, subtype and location of strokes as assessed by neuroimaging during and after VA-ECMO support were analyzed. Median age was 61 years (IQR 50-69); 67% were men. 77 patients were cannulated via the ascending aorta (17%), 31 via the axillary artery (7%), and 306 (69%) via the femoral artery. In total, 26 patients (6.3%) developed 30 stroke lesions at a median of 6.0 (IQR 3.1-8.7) days after ECMO cannulation. Ischemic stroke was the most common subtype (64%), followed by hemorrhagic transformation (20%) and hemorrhagic stroke (16%). Location by CT was right hemispheric in 38%, left hemispheric in 24%, bilateral in 21%, and vertebrobasilar in 17%. The incidence of stroke was similar across cannulation strategies: aorta (n = 5, 6.5%), axillary artery (n = 2, 6.5%), and femoral artery (n = 19, 6.2%), (p = 0.99). Incidence of stroke does not appear to differ among patients cannulated via the ascending aorta, axillary artery, or femoral artery. Ischemic stroke was the most common subtype of stroke.
Subject(s)
Catheterization, Peripheral , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Ischemic Stroke , Stroke , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: De novo aortic insufficiency (AI) is a common adverse event after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement and is associated with morbidity and mortality. This study aims to compare the development of de novo AI between HeartMate 3 (Abbott) and HeartMate II LVAD recipients. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of clinical characteristics and serial echocardiograms (1 month, 6 months, and 1 year postimplantation) of HeartMate 3 patients implanted between November 2014 and March 2019 and of HeartMate II patients implanted between April 2004 and December 2015 at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. One hundred twenty-two patients were excluded from analysis for a history of aortic valve surgery, concomitant aortic valve surgery with LVAD implant, or more than trace preoperative AI left untreated. De novo AI was defined as development of more than mild AI after LVAD implant. RESULTS: Included in the study were 121 HeartMate 3 patients and 270 HeartMate II patients. After accounting for competing risks of death and transplantation, there was no significant difference in the development of de novo AI by 1 year postimplantation between HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 patients (P = .68). There was no significant difference in severity of AI developed up to 1 year post-implantation between HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development of de novo AI is comparable between HeartMate 3 and HeartMate II patients. There is no significant difference in severity of AI between HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 patients.
Subject(s)
Aortic Valve Insufficiency , Heart Failure , Heart-Assist Devices , Aortic Valve Insufficiency/etiology , Aortic Valve Insufficiency/surgery , Echocardiography , Heart Failure/etiology , Heart Failure/surgery , Heart-Assist Devices/adverse effects , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.