Search

For the success of the treatment with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), both adequate self-management by the patient and an optimum level of support from the implanting hospital are crucial. A smartphone application has recently been developed within the framework of a European research project for the close monitoring of LVAD patients in order to improve upon their current aftercare situation. Using this new tool, different relevant parameters (eg, weight, international normalized ratio [INR], medication, LVAD parameters, symptoms, and photos of the driveline exit) can be sent daily or as required to a corresponding clinical application at the hospital for evaluation. The objective of this study was to monitor the functionality, acceptance, and usability of this smartphone application in LVAD patients. Prospective single-center study: in total, 13 patients (60 ± 7 years, 92% male, 1027 ± 653 days after LVAD implantation) were requested to test the application for approx. 4 weeks. At the end of the study, all entered data were evaluated and the patients were questioned regarding the acceptance and the usability. During the study period of mean 34 ± 8 days, a total of 453 data records (mean 35 ± 7 per patient) arrived at the hospital. In addition, a total of 19 photos of the driveline exit site were also sent via smartphone. The clinical application registered a total of 160 conspicuities. These comprised 126 INR deviations (target range 2.3-2.8) and 34 symptoms (mainly nosebleeds). The smartphone application functioned reliably, was well received by the patients and was graded highly for acceptance and usability. The results show that smartphone applications can definitely be used to improve aftercare in LVAD therapy in selected patients. Long-term studies are now needed to investigate the extent to which complications can be prevented, healthcare costs reduced, and quality of life increased.

Poor survival has been demonstrated after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation for Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 and 2 patients compared with more stable levels. However, risk factors within this high-risk cohort have not been determined so far. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors associated with this very high mortality rate. Between February 1993 and January 2013, 298 patients underwent VAD implantation in our institution. One hundred nine patients were in INTERMACS level 1 and 49 patients were in INTERMACS level 2 and were therefore defined as hemodynamically critical (overall 158 patients). Assist devices implanted were: HVAD HeartWare n = 18; Incor n = 11; VentrAssist n = 2; DeBakey n = 22; and pulsatile systems n = 105. After cumulative support duration of 815.35 months, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a survival of 63.9, 48.8, and 40.3% at 1, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Cox regression analyses identified age > 50 (P = 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 2.48), white blood cell count > 13.000/μL (P = 0.01, OR 2.06), preoperative renal replacement therapy (P = 0.001, OR 2.63), and postcardiotomy failure (P

Reports on third-generation centrifugal intrapericardial pumps (HeartWare International, Inc., Framingham, MA, USA) have shown better survival results than the previous-generation devices. However, outcomes depending on the preoperative level of stability can substantially differ, resulting in a limited analysis of potentialities and drawbacks of a given device. In the present study we sought to compare in our single-center experience the survival results of this third-generation device with previous left ventricular systems taking into account the different preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) levels. Between February 1993 and March 2012, 287 patients underwent assist device implantation in our university hospital (INTERMACS Level 1-2 = 158 patients; INTERMACS Level 3-4-5 = 129 patients). Assist devices implanted were: Group A (HVAD HeartWare, n = 52), group B (previous continuous-flow ventricular assist device [VAD], InCor [Berlin Heart, Berlin, Germany], n = 37; VentrAssist [VentraCor, Inc., Chatswood, NSW, Australia], n = 7; DeBakey [MicroMed Cardiovascular, Inc., Houston, TX, USA], n = 32), and group C (pulsatile systems, n = 159). After cumulative support duration of 54 436 days and a mean follow-up of 6.21 ± 7.46 months (range 0-45.21 months), log-rank analysis revealed a survival for group A of 82.0%, 70.4%, and 70.4%; for group B of 84.0%, 48.2%, 33.7%; and for group C of 71.6%, 46.1%, 33.8%, at 1, 12, and 24 months respectively, with a significantly (P = 0.013) better outcome for group A. When stratifying the survival on the basis of INTERMACS level, no significant survival improvement was observed among all patients who underwent VAD implantation in INTERMACS 1-2 (P = 0.47). However, among patients who underwent elective VAD implantation (INTERMACS 3-4-5), group A had a significantly better outcome (P = 0.005) compared with the other INTERMACS-matched groups (B,C) with a survival rate of 88.8% in group A versus 34.2% in group B and 45.6% in group C at 24 months, respectively. Elective HVAD system implantation shows improved survival benefit over the other INTERMACS-matched devices. Moreover, preoperative unstable hemodynamics resulted in a poor prognosis independently from the pump generation.

Poor survival has been demonstrated after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation for Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1 and 2 patients compared with more stable levels. However, risk factors within this high-risk cohort have not been determined so far. The aim of the present study was to identify risk factors associated with this very high mortality rate. Between February 1993 and January 2013, 298 patients underwent VAD implantation in our institution. One hundred nine patients were in INTERMACS level 1 and 49 patients were in INTERMACS level 2 and were therefore defined as hemodynamically critical (overall 158 patients). Assist devices implanted were: HVAD HeartWare n = 18; Incor n = 11; VentrAssist n = 2; DeBakey n = 22; and pulsatile systems n = 105. After cumulative support duration of 815.35 months, Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a survival of 63.9, 48.8, and 40.3% at 1, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Cox regression analyses identified age 50 (P = 0.001, odds ratio [OR] 2.48), white blood cell count 13.000/μL (P = 0.01, OR 2.06), preoperative renal replacement therapy (P = 0.001, OR 2.63), and postcardiotomy failure (P 0.001, OR 2.79) as independent predictors of mortality. Of note, last generation VADs were not associated with significantly better 6-month survival (P = 0.59). Patients without the aforementioned risk factors could yield a survival of 79.2% at 6 months. This single-center experience shows that VAD implantation in hemodynamically unstable patients generally results in poor early outcome, even in third-generation pumps. However, avoiding the aforementioned risk factors could result in improved outcome.