Reasons for, and outcomes of patients who were referred for a ventricular assist device but were declined: the recent era forgotten ones.

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.
(© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)