Significantly higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic events with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (GIB) and thromboembolic events may increase with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs). We aimed to characterize GIB and thromboembolic events that occurred in patients with CF-LVADs and compare them with patients receiving anticoagulation therapy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 159 patients who underwent CF-LVAD placement at 2 large academic medical centers (mean age, 55 ± 13 y). We identified and characterized episodes of GIB and thromboembolic events through chart review; data were collected from a time period of 292 ± 281 days. We compared the rates of GIB and thromboembolic events between patients who underwent CF-LVAD placement and a control group of 159 patients (mean age, 64 ± 15 y) who received a cardiac valve replacement and were discharged with anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: Bleeding events occurred in 29 patients on CF-LVAD support (18%; 45 events total). Sixteen rebleeding events were identified among 10 patients (range, 1-3 rebleeding episodes/patient). There were 34 thrombotic events among 27 patients (17%). The most common source of bleeding was GI angiodysplastic lesions (n = 20; 44%). GIB and thromboembolic events were more common in patients on CF-LVAD support than controls; these included initial GIB (18% vs 4%, P < .001), rebleeding (6% vs none, P = .001), and thromboembolic events (17% vs 8%, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CF-LVADS receiving anticoagulants have a significantly higher risk of GIB and thromboembolic events than patients receiving anticoagulants after cardiac valve replacement surgery. GI angiodysplastic lesions are the most common source of bleeding.

Superiority of moderate control of hyperglycemia to tight control in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: Although consensus in cardiac surgery supports tight control of perioperative hyperglycemia (glucose<120 mg/dL), recent studies in critical care suggest moderate glycemic control may be superior. We sought to determine whether tight control or moderate glycemic control is optimal after coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: From 1995 to 2008, a total of 4658 patients with known diabetes or perioperative hyperglycemia (preoperative glycosylated hemoglobin≥8 or postoperative serum glucose>126 mg/dL) underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution. Patients were stratified into 3 postoperative glycemic groups: tight (≤126 mg/dL), moderate (127-179 mg/dL), and liberal (≥180 mg/dL). Preoperative risk factors, glycemic management, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 2.5% (119/4658); major complication rate was 12.5% (581/4658). Relative to moderate group, more patients in tight group had preoperative renal failure (tight 16.4%, 22/134, moderate 8.3%, 232/2785, P=.001) and underwent emergent operations (tight 5.2%, 7/134, moderate 1.9%, 52/2785, P=.007); however, Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted mortality risk was lower in tight group (P<.001). Moderate group had lowest mortality (tight 2.9%, 4/134, moderate 2.0%, 56/2785, liberal 3.4%, 59/1739, P=.02) and incidence of major complications (tight 19.4%, 26/134, moderate 11.1%, 308/2785, liberate 14.2%, 247/1739, P<.001). Risk-adjusted major complication incidence (adjusted odds ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval 0.58-0.87) and mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.83) were lower with moderate glucose control than with tight or liberal management. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate glycemic control was superior to tight glycemic control, with decreased mortality and major complications, and may be ideal for patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.