Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged inotropes after left ventricular assist device implantation
- PMID: 32242954
- DOI: 10.1111/aor.13692
Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients requiring prolonged inotropes after left ventricular assist device implantation
Abstract
Limited data exist regarding patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support who require long-term inotropes. Our primary objective was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and all-cause mortality of LVAD recipients with prolonged inotrope use (PIU). Secondary endpoints were to compare predictors of PIU, mortality, risk of late re-initiation of inotropes, time to gastrointestinal bleed (GIB), infection, and arrhythmias. Retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients with primary continuous-flow LVADs implanted from January 2008 to February 2017 and the patients were followed up through February 2018. We defined PIU as ≥14 days of inotrope support. Kaplan-Meier method, competing risk models and Cox proportional hazard models were used. Final analytic sample was 203 patients, 58% required PIU, and 10% were discharged on inotropes. There was no difference in preimplant characteristics. One-year survival rate was 87% if no PIU required, 74% if PIU required, and 72% if discharged on inotropes. PIU was associated with longer length of stay and higher incidence of GIB. We found no association between PIU and late re-initiation of inotropes, infection or arrhythmias. Adjusted hazard risk of death was increased in patients with PIU (HR = 1.66, P = .046), older age (HR = 1.28, P = .031), and higher creatinine levels (HR = 1.60, P = .007). Prolonged inotrope use is frequently encountered following LVAD implantation and is associated with adverse prognosis but remains a therapeutic option. Inability to wean inotropes prior to hospital discharge is a marker of patients at particularly higher risk of mortality following LVAD implantation.
Keywords: inotropes; left ventricular assist device; right ventricular failure.
© 2020 International Center for Artificial Organs and Transplantation and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Similar articles
-
Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 May;139(5):1316-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.11.020. Epub 2010 Feb 4. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010. PMID: 20132950
-
Pulmonary artery pulsatility index predicts prolonged inotrope/pulmonary vasodilator use after implantation of continuous flow left ventricular assist device.Congenit Heart Dis. 2019 Nov;14(6):1130-1137. doi: 10.1111/chd.12860. Epub 2019 Dec 4. Congenit Heart Dis. 2019. PMID: 31802608
-
Preoperative Right-Sided Cardiac Congestion Is Associated with Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices.Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Jun;63(6):1518-1524. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-4916-8. Epub 2018 Feb 8. Dig Dis Sci. 2018. PMID: 29417325
-
Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device and the right ventricle.AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012 Jan-Mar;23(1):86-90. doi: 10.1097/NCI.0b013e31823ef240. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012. PMID: 22290094 Review.
-
Late-onset right ventricular failure after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation: case presentation and review of the literature.J Cardiol. 2022 Aug;80(2):110-115. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2021.12.009. Epub 2021 Dec 30. J Cardiol. 2022. PMID: 34974940 Review.
Cited by
-
Aortic valve disorders and left ventricular assist devices.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Feb 23;10:1098348. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1098348. eCollection 2023. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023. PMID: 36910539 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Nov 3;9:1040251. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1040251. eCollection 2022. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022. PMID: 36407460 Free PMC article. Review.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Benjamin EJ, Virani SS, Callaway CW, Chamberlain Alanna M, Chang Alexander R, Cheng Susan, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2018 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;137:e67-492. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000558.
-
- Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, Birks E, Lietz K, Moore SA, et al. The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:157-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2012.09.013.
-
- Jorde UP, Kushwaha SS, Tatooles AJ, Naka Y, Bhat G, Long JW, et al. Results of the destination therapy post-food and drug administration approval study with a continuous flow left ventricular assist device: a prospective study using the INTERMACS registry (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1751-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.01.053.
-
- Kormos RL, Teuteberg JJ, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Miller LW, et al. Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139:1316-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.11.020.
-
- Baumwol J, Macdonald PS, Keogh AM, Kotlyar E, Spratt P, Jansz P, et al. Right heart failure and "failure to thrive" after left ventricular assist device: clinical predictors and outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:888-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2011.03.006.
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
