Search

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) in patients with advance heart failure is still associated with an important risk of immune dysregulation and infections. The aim of this study was to determine whether extracorporeal blood purification using the CytoSorb device benefits patients after LVAD implantation in terms of complications and overall survival.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation, of whom 72 underwent CytoSorb therapy and 135 did not. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between 112 propensity score-matched patients (CytoSorb: 72 patients; non-CytoSorb: 40 patients).RESULTS: WBC (p = .033), CRP (p = .001), and IL-6 (p < .001), significantly increased with LVAD implantation, while CytoSorb did not influence this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar with CytoSorb. However, patients treated with CytoSorb were more likely to develop respiratory failure (54.2% vs. 30.0%, p = .024), need mechanical ventilation for longer than 6 days post-implant (50.0% vs. 27.5%, p = .035), and require tracheostomy during hospitalization (31.9% vs. 12.5%, p = .040). No other significant differences were observed with regard to major adverse events during follow-up.CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results showed that CytoSorb might not convey a significant morbidity or mortality benefit for patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) for advanced heart failure is becoming increasingly common. However, optimal timing and patient selection remain controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes of LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure in critically ill patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2). Between August 2010 and January 2020, 207 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation. Overall survival, major adverse events, and laboratory parameters were compared between patients in INTERMACS 1-2 (n = 107) and INTERMACS 3-5 (n = 100). Preoperative white blood cells, C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and lactate dehydrogenase were all significantly higher in INTERMACS 1-2 when compared to INTERMACS 3-5 (P < .05). During hospitalization following LVAD implantation, patients in INTERMACS 1-2 were more likely to develop major infections (41.1% vs. 23.0%, P = .005), respiratory failure (57.9% vs. 25.0%, P < .001), mild (20.6% vs. 8.0%, P = .010), and moderate (31.8% vs. 7.0%, P < .001) right heart failure, and acute renal dysfunction (56.1% vs. 6.0%, P < .001). During a median follow-up of 2.00 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.24-3.39 years), they had a higher incidence of thoracic (15.9% vs. 4.0%, P = .005) and gastrointestinal bleeding (21.5% vs. 11.0%, P = .042), as well as right heart failure (18.7% vs. 1%, P < .001). Risk of death was significantly higher in the INTERMACS 1-2 group (hazards ratio (HR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.12-2.40, P = .011). LVAD implantation in critically ill patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Our results suggest that decision for LVAD should be not be delayed until INTERMACS 1 and 2 levels whenever possible.

Background and Objectives: The understanding of high body mass index (BMI) and outcomes after Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) implantation continues to evolve and the relationship has not been established yet. In this study, we investigated the effects of obesity (BMI &gt, 30 kg/m2) on post&ndash, LVAD implantation outcomes. HeartWare LVAD and Heart Mate III LVAD were implanted. The primary outcome that was measured was mortality (in-hospital and on follow-up). The secondary outcomes that were measured were major adverse events. Materials and Methods: At our institution, the West German Heart and Vascular Center (Essen, Germany), from August 2010 to January 2020, a total of 210 patients received a long-term LVAD. Patients were stratified according to BMI &ge, 30 kg/m2 representing the obesity threshold. The first group (n = 162) had an average BMI of 24.2 kg/m2 (&plusmn, 2.9), and the second group (n = 48) had an average BMI of 33.9 kg/m2 (&plusmn, 3.2). Baseline demographics were analysed alongside comorbidities per group. Results: Overall mortality was not significantly different between the obese group (51.1% n = 24) and the nonobese group (55.2%, n = 85) (p = 0.619). The difference between the mean duration of survival of patients who expired after hospital discharge was insignificant (2.1 years &plusmn, 1.6, group 1, 2.6 years &plusmn, 1.5, group 2, p = 0.29). In-hospital mortality was unvaried between the two groups: group 1: n = 34 (44% out of overall group 1 deaths), group 2: n = 11 (45.8% out of overall group 2 deaths) (p &gt, 0.05). Postoperative complications were unvaried between the obese and the non-obese group (all with p &gt, 0.05). However, a significant difference was found with regards to follow-up neurological complications (18.5% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.01) and LVAD thrombosis (14.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.01), as both were higher in the obese population. Conclusion: Obesity does not form a barrier for LVAD implantation in terms of mortality (in-hospital and on follow up). However, a significantly higher incidence of follow-up LVAD thrombosis and neurological complications has been found in the obese group of patients.