Search

Background Ventricular assist devices ( VADs) have a proven survival benefit in select patients with advanced heart failure, yet many patients considered for implantation are declined for various reasons. The outcome of these patients is obscure owing to their exclusion from recent VAD studies. We aim to compare the outcomes of patients who received a VAD to those who did not. Methods For this study, the Artificial Heart Program's database at Intermountain Medical Center was queried from 2006 to 2012 for patients referred for a VAD. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with log-rank test determining significance. Results Of 232 patients included, 118 patients received a VAD and 114 patients did not. The prevailing reason for VAD decline in eligible and willing patients was due to pre-existing illness (39%). Mortality was higher in non- VAD vs. VAD patients (58.8% vs. 35.6%, p < 0.001) with a median time-to-death of 67 ( IQR:12-314) and 301 ( IQR:136-694) d, respectively (p = 0.007). Conclusions In the current era of non-pulsatile VADs, mortality of patients who are considered but not implanted remains high. Additionally, mortality of these patients occurred much sooner. Educational efforts ensuring timely referral for VAD therapy are important to maximize the number of patients who may benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Driveline exit site (DLES) infection is a major complication of ventricular assist devices (VADs). Differences in the sheath material interfacing with exit site tissue appear to affect healing time and infection risk more than site hygiene, but the mechanistic basis for this is not clear. Methods Health record data from Utah Artificial Heart Program patients with HeartMate II (HMII) devices implanted from 2008 to 2012 were retrospectively reviewed, with particular attention to interface type, incorporation (healing) time, and infections. Tissue samples from the DLES were collected at the time of VAD removal in a small subset. These samples were examined by routine histology and environmental scanning electron microscopy (ESEM). Results Among 57 patients with sufficient data, 15 had velour interfaces and 42 had silicone. Indications for and duration of support were similar between the groups. The silicone group had shorter incorporation time (45 ± 22 vs. 56 ± 34 days, P = .17) and fewer DLES infections (20% vs. 1.7%, P = .026, for patient infections and 0.0340 vs. 0.166, P = .16, for infections per patient-year). Tissues from five patients, three with velour, were examined. Velour interfaces demonstrated more hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, and dermal inflammation. By ESEM, the silicone driveline tracts appeared relatively smooth and flat, whereas the velour interface samples were irregular with deep fissures and globular material adhering to the surface. Conclusions Using the silicone portion of the HMII driveline at the DLES was associated with fewer infections and a trend toward faster healing in this small retrospective series. Whether the intriguing microscopic differences directly account for this needs further study on a larger scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]