Left ventricular assist device-related infections and the risk of cerebrovascular accidents:a EUROMACS study

OBJECTIVES: In patients supported by a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), infections are a frequently reported adverse event with increased morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible association between infections and thromboembolic events, most notable cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs), in LVAD patients. METHODS: An analysis of the multicentre European Registry for Patients Assisted with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed. Infections were categorized as VAD-specific infections, VAD-related infections and non-VAD-related infections. An extended Kaplan–Meier analysis for the risk of CVA with infection as a time-dependent covariate and a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model were performed. RESULTS: For this analysis, 3282 patients with an LVAD were included with the majority of patients being male (83.1%). During follow-up, 1262 patients suffered from infection, and 457 patients had a CVA. Cox regression analysis with first infection as time-dependent covariate revealed a hazard ratio (HR) for CVA of 1.90 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.55–2.33; P < 0.001]. Multivariable analysis confirmed the association for infection and CVAs with an HR of 1.99 (95% CI: 1.62–2.45; P < 0.001). With infections subcategorized, VAD-specific HR was 1.56 (95% CI: 1.18–2.08; P 0.002) and VAD-related infections [HR: 1.99 (95% CI: 1.41–2.82; P < 0.001)] remained associated with CVAs, while non-VAD-related infections (P = 0.102) were not. CONCLUSIONS: Infection during LVAD support is associated with an increased risk of developing an ischaemic or haemorrhagic CVA, particularly in the setting of VAD-related or VAD-specific infections. This suggests the need of a stringent anticoagulation management and adequate antibiotic treatment during an infection in LVAD-supported patients

Outcomes of patients after successful left ventricular assist device explantation: a EUROMACS study

Aims: Sufficient myocardial recovery with the subsequent explantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) occurs in approximately 1–2% of the cases. However, follow-up data about this condition are scarcely available in the literature. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes and clinical management following LVAD explantation. Methods and results: An analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed to identify all adult patients with myocardial recovery and successful explantation. Pre-implant characteristics were retrieved and compared with the non-recovery patients. The follow-up data after explantation were collected via a questionnaire. A Kaplan–Meier analysis for freedom of the composite endpoint of death, heart transplantation, LVAD reimplantion, or heart failure (HF) relapse was conducted. A total of 45 (1.4%) cases with myocardial recovery resulting in successful LVAD explantation were identified. Compared with those who did not experience myocardial recovery, the explanted patients were younger (44 vs. 56 years, P < 0.001), had a shorter duration of cardiac disease (P < 0.001), and were less likely to have ischaemic cardiomyopathy (9% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Follow-up after explantation could be acquired in 28 (62%) cases. The median age at LVAD implantation was 43 years (inter-quartile range: 29–52),

Rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve surgery with left ventricular assist device implantation

Background: Significant aortic regurgitation at the time of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, requires concomitant aortic valve (AoV) replacement or repair. However, the impact of concomitant AoV surgery on morbidity remains unknown. Therefore, our aim is to determine the impact of concomitant AoV surgery on thromboembolic and bleeding events. Methods: A retrospective IMACS registry study, including patients implanted from 2013 until September 2017. Differences between different concomitant AoV surgery modalities were analyzed. Results: In total, 785 (5.1%) out of 15.267 patients (median age 58 IQR 49–66 years, 79% male) underwent concomitant AoV surgery (median age 63 IQR 54–69 years, 84% male); 386 (49%) patients received biological prostheses, 71 (9%) mechanical prostheses and 328 (42%) AoV repairs. In total, 54 (8%) patients with AoV surgery experienced a thromboembolic event and 1016 (9%) patients with no AoV surgery. Furthermore, concomitant AoV surgery was associated with an increased rate of all and nonsurgical bleedings. Following a multivariable Cox regression, concomitant AoV surgery remained an independent predictor for bleeding events. Conclusions: In LVAD patients undergoing concomitant AoV surgery, thromboembolic event rates were not higher, however both all and nonsurgical bleeding event rates were higher