Search

Introduction: The number of patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is increasing each year. Despite a lack of evidence, many emergency medical systems and hospitals have recommended against performing chest compressions in these patients. This deviation from conventional resuscitation algorithms is secondary to concern that chest compressions could dislodge the LVAD., Objective: To assess whether cannula dislodgment occurred in LVAD patients receiving chest compressions., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of all LVAD patients who received chest compressions for cardiac arrest over a four year period in a large urban hospital. Eight cases were reviewed for both cannula integrity and outcomes., Results: Using autopsy and adequate flow through device as proxy for intact inflow/outflow cannulas, none of the eight patients receiving chest compressions had cannula dislodgment. Four of the 8 patients had return of neurologic function., Conclusions: In this small retrospective case series, standard chest compressions in patients with LVADs did not cause cannula dislodgment. More research is necessary to determine the utility of chest compressions in the LVAD population., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The HeartMate II (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA) continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improved survival in destination therapy (DT) patients during a randomized trial compared with pulsatile-flow LVADs. This study documented changes in cognitive performance in DT patients from that trial to determine if there were differences between continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow support., Methods: Data were collected in a sub-study from 96 HeartMate II continuous-flow and 30 HeartMate XVE pulsatile-flow LVAD patients from 12 of the 35 trial sites that followed the same serial neurocognitive (NC) testing protocol at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after LVAD implantation. Spatial perception, memory, language, executive functions, and processing speed were the domains assessed with 10 standard cognitive measures. Differences over time and between LVAD type were evaluated with linear mixed-effects modeling., Results: From 1 to 24 months after LVAD implantation, changes in NC functions were stable or showed improvement in all domains, and there were no differences between the continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow groups. Data at 24 months were only available from patients with the continuous-flow LVAD due to the limited durability of the HeartMate XVE device. There was no decline in any NC domain over the time of LVAD support. Missing data not collected from patients who died could have resulted in a bias toward inflated study results., Conclusions: The NC performance of advanced heart failure patients supported with continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow LVADs shows stabilization or improvement during support for up to 24 months., (Copyright © 2012 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to determine outcomes in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients older than age 70 years., Background: Food and Drug Administration approval of the HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, California) LVAD for destination therapy has provided an attractive option for older patients with advanced heart failure., Methods: Fifty-five patients received the HeartMate II LVAD between October 5, 2005, and January 1, 2010, as part of either the bridge to transplantation or destination therapy trials at a community hospital. Patients were divided into 2 age groups: ≥ 70 years of age (n = 30) and < 70 years of age (n = 25). Outcome measures including survival, length of hospital stay, adverse events, and quality of life were compared between the 2 groups., Results: Pre-operatively, all patients were in New York Heart Association functional class IV refractory to maximal medical therapy. Kaplan-Meier survival for patients ≥ 70 years of age (97% at 1 month, 75% at 1 year, and 70% at 2 years) was not statistically different from patients <7 0 years of age (96% 1 month, 72% at 1 year, and 65% at 2 years, p = 0.806). Average length of hospital stay for the ≥ 70-year age group was 24 ± 15 days, similar to that of the < 70-year age group (23 ± 14 days, p = 0.805). There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events between the 2 groups. Quality of life and functional status improved significantly in both groups., Conclusions: The LVAD patients ≥ 70 years of age have good functional recovery, survival, and quality of life at 2 years. Advanced age should not be used as an independent contraindication when selecting a patient for LVAD therapy at experienced centers., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Aortic valve integrity is crucial for optimal left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Pre-existing native aortic insufficiency, aortic valve incompetence acquired during support, as well as previously placed prosthetic aortic valves present unique problems for these patients., Methods: We reviewed and analyzed data for 28 patients who underwent left ventricular outflow tract closure associated with HeartMate I (n =12) and HeartMate II (n = 16) LVAD insertion or exchange. Indications for valve closure, surgical technique, LVAD function, survival rates and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Survival rates were compared with those of HeartMate LVAD patients (n = 104) who did not undergo aortic valve closure., Results: Indications for closure included native aortic valve insufficiency (10 patients), aortic valve deterioration after prolonged LVAD support (8 patients) and previously placed mechanical (9 patients) or bioprosthetic aortic prostheses (1 patient). There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths (mean 227 days post-operatively). Of the deaths, none were due to aortic valve closure. Actuarial survival was 78% at 1 year and 53% at 3 years, which was statistically better than for our patients with an intact aortic outflow (61% at 1 year, 45% at 3 years; p < 0.05). Five patients had transplants, 1 patient was successfully bridged to recovery, and 15 patients remain on LVAD support. No patient with outflow closure developed regurgitation, embolization or compromised LVAD support., Conclusion: Outflow tract closure in LVAD-supported patients is safe, often necessary and well tolerated., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have emerged as the standard of care for advanced heart failure patients requiring long-term mechanical circulatory support. Evidence-based clinical management of LVAD-supported patients is becoming increasingly important for optimizing outcomes. In this state-of-art review, we propose key elements in managing patients supported with the new continuous-flow LVADs. Although most of the presented information is largely based on investigator experience during the 1,300-patient HeartMate II clinical trial, many of the discussed principles can be applied to other emerging devices as well. Patient selection, pre-operative preparation, and the timing of LVAD implant are some of the most important elements critical to successful circulatory support and are principles universal to all devices. In addition, proper nutrition management and avoidance of infectious complications can significantly affect morbidity and mortality during LVAD support. Optimizing intraoperative and peri-operative care, and the monitoring and treatment of other organ system dysfunction as it relates to LVAD support, are discussed. A multidisciplinary heart failure team must be organized and charged with providing comprehensive care from initial referral until support is terminated. Preparing for hospital discharge requires detailed education for the patient and family or friends, with provisions for emergencies and routine care. Implantation techniques, troubleshooting device problems, and algorithms for outpatient management, including the diagnosis and treatment of related problems associated with the HeartMate II, are discussed as an example of a specific continuous-flow LVAD. Ongoing trials with other continuous-flow devices may produce additional information in the future for improving clinical management of patients with these devices., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The duration times of left ventricular assist system (LVAS) support have increased because of prolonged wait times for transplant and the more frequent use of devices for destination therapy. The HeartMate LVAS, the only device approved for bridge to transplant and destination therapy, has limited durability, making replacement increasingly necessary. Since 1996, we have exchanged 19 left ventricular assist devices in 15 patients (11 men: mean age, 57.1 years; range, 33-77 years). Most of the devices (14) were replaced with the HeartMate vented electric/extended-lead vented electric pump; five devices were exchanged for a HeartMate II LVAS. Bearing failure was the most frequent reason for exchange (15 of 19 pumps); four of the 19 pumps also had active device-related infections at the time of exchange. There were no early deaths (30 days). Overall survival (Kaplan-Meier) was 85% at 1 year, 67% at 2 years, and 56% at 3 years. Three patients had transplants (mean, 518 days); six patients died during support (mean, 934 days), and six patients remain on LVAS support (mean, 1,219 days). One patient has been on device for over 6 years. Left ventricular assist devices exchange is becoming increasingly likely and can be associated with acceptably low-operative mortality rates and good intermediate-term survival.

A depressed patient with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) due to heart failure presented a unique challenge for staff in an inpatient psychiatric facility. Although depression in this patient population has been recognized and treated on an outpatient basis, the example described in this article may be the first known case to be treated in an acute inpatient psychiatric hospital setting. A variety of steps had to be taken to ensure the highest standards of care, as well as an optimal outcome for this patient. In addition to the individualized plan of care for depression, a more medically oriented and technologically advanced plan of care was also instituted. The inpatient psychiatric setting provides the necessary care and treatment to help the patient move beyond severe depression to engage in activities essential for health and the proper care and function of the LVAD. This article highlights an unusual psychiatric-mental health nursing situation to help others who may face this challenge in the future., (Copyright 2009, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background: Neurocognitive (NC) changes in heart failure patients receiving left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to document changes in the cognitive performance of patients with the continuous-flow HeartMate II LVAD as a bridge to transplant (BTT)., Methods: A NC protocol was used to evaluate patient performance at 1, 3 and 6 months after LVAD implantation at 11 centers. A total of 239 test sessions were completed in 93 patients including paired evaluations in 51 to 57 patients from 1 to 3 months, and in 20 to 28 patients with results from 1, 3 and 6 months. Five NC domains were assessed, including visual spatial perception, auditory and visual memory, executive functions, language and processing speed., Results: There were statistically significant (p < 0.05), but limited improvements between 1, 3 and 6 months in NC domain performances as seen in visual memory, executive functions, visual spatial perception and processing speed. There were no significant declines in any neurocognitive test in any domain over these time periods., Conclusions: The cognitive performance of advanced heart failure patients remained stable or showed slight improvements from Month 1 to Month 6 of continuous-blood-flow support with the HeartMate II LVAD.

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are becoming more commonplace in the hospital and community settings as the number of patients living with heart failure increases. Patients being discharged after hospitalization for heart failure rose from 399 000 in 1979 to 1 099 000 in 2004, an increase of 175%. Patients with heart failure become severely debilitated finding activities of daily living including eating, bathing, and walking a great effort. Patients with end-stage heart failure are often sent home on inotropic therapies and referred to hospice care. The use of VADs for these patients can dramatically improve both the quality and the length of life. VADs can be broadly categorized as being either continuous flow (fluid dynamic) or pulsatile (volume displacement) and either can be used as short- or long-term support devices. The critical care nurse is in a unique position to educate patients with chronic heart failure on options available to improve their quality of life including VAD therapy. VADs are available for destination therapy for those not meeting transplant criteria, offering a longer quality of life. As centers gain more experience and referrals are made earlier in the disease process, VAD patient care will be more streamlined decreasing length of stay.

Nutrition evaluation and support is an integral component of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Malnutrition in the LVAD patient contributes to a host of post-operative problems, such as infection and limited functional capacity, which compromise long-term outcomes. Comprehensive pre-operative evaluation of the LVAD patient should include a nutrition assessment and formalized plan to initiate and advance nutrition support while addressing the metabolic imbalances associated with heart failure. An interdisciplinary approach, including a nutrition support team, is desirable to manage these patients effectively. This article reviews essential aspects regarding nutrition management of these patients.

Implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have demonstrated clinical success in both the bridge-to-transplantation and destination-therapy patient populations; however, infection remains one of the most common causes of mortality during mechanical circulatory support. Thus, serious LVAD infections may negate the benefits of LVAD implantation, resulting in decreased quality of life, increased morbidity and mortality, and increased costs associated with implantation. Prevention of device-related infection is crucial to the cost-effective use of mechanical circulatory support devices. Therefore, adherence to evidence-based infection control and prevention guidelines, meticulous surgical technique and optimal postoperative surgical site care form the foundation for LVAD associated infection prevention.

The number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations is growing as a result of increased waiting periods for cardiac transplantation and the decreased availability of organ donors. Furthermore, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved permanent LVAD support. After an acute hospitalization, patients with LVADs may need prolonged convalescence in a healthcare facility because they have complex medical needs and are physically disabled. Admission criteria need to be developed as essential patient and nursing competencies need to be defined as a part of a successful LVAD program in an acute rehabilitation center. Acute rehabilitation centers can help patients with LVADs transition to a home setting.

Background: The HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device has been approved for use as destination therapy. Thus, the study of quality-of-life outcomes, as well as morbidity and mortality, is imperative. The purpose of our study was to describe change with time (from 1 month to 1 year) in patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation and to identify quality-of-life predictors of survival after left ventricular assist device implantation., Methods: A nonrandom sample of 78 patients who received a HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device (primarily middle-aged, white married males) who had quality-of-life data at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 months after implant was the subject of this report. The sample size decreased with time primarily because of heart transplantation. Patients completed the following booklets of questionnaires: Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, and Sickness Impact Profile. Analyses included both descriptive analyses and modeling procedures (mixed-effects models and Cox proportional hazards models)., Results: Quality-of-life outcomes were fairly good and stable from 1 month to 1 year after HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist device implantation. Both positive and negative changes were detected in all quality-of-life domains (physical and occupational function, social interaction, somatic sensation, and psychological state) after left ventricular assist device insertion. Items from the physical domain of quality of life, specifically walking and dressing oneself, were significantly associated with the risk of dying after left ventricular assist device implantation., Conclusions: Identifying poor quality-of-life outcomes within 1 year after left ventricular assist device implantation provides direction to develop strategies to improve outcomes. Physical and occupational rehabilitation, psychosocial intervention, and monitoring symptom distress and physical disability may contribute to improved quality-of-life outcomes and survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.

Background: No studies have analyzed quality of life (QOL) from before to after heart transplantation in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal, multi-site study was to compare QOL outcomes of patients listed for heart transplantation who required a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) at 3 months after implantation of an LVAD vs 3 months after heart transplantation., Methods: A non-random sample of 40 patients (predominantly middle-aged, married, white men), who had paired data at both 3 months after LVAD implantation and 3 months after heart transplantation, were investigated. Patients completed self-report questionnaires (with acceptable reliability and validity) at both time periods, including the Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale (completed only after LVAD implant), Heart Transplant Stressor Scale (completed only after heart transplant) and Jalowiec Coping Scale. Descriptive analyses and comparative analyses using paired t-tests were performed with statistical significance set at 0.01., Results: Patients were significantly more satisfied with their lives overall and with their health and functioning at 3 months after heart transplantation as compared with 3 months after LVAD implantation. Mobility, self-care ability, physical ability and overall functional ability improved from 3 months after LVAD implant to 3 months after heart transplant. There was significantly less symptom distress after LVAD implant as compared with after heart transplant for the neurologic, dermatologic and physical sub-scales. Work/school/financial stress was significantly lower after heart transplant vs after LVAD implant. In contrast, 2 other areas of stress were significantly lower after LVAD implant vs after heart transplant: self-care stress and hospital/clinic-related stress., Conclusions: Differences were found in QOL outcomes at 3 months after LVAD implant as compared with 3 months after heart transplant. Our findings point out specific areas of concern with respect to QOL after LVAD implant and post-transplant, some of which are amenable to health-care provider interventions.

Background: Quality of life (QOL) outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation from before to after hospital discharge have been examined only in a very small sample of patients. The purposes of this study are to describe change in QOL from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients and to determine whether being discharged with an LVAD predicts better QOL than being hospitalized with an LVAD., Methods: A non-random sample of 62 LVAD patients (approximately 50 years old, male, white, married, fairly well-educated) completed self-report questionnaires at >or=2 timepoints post-implant. The questionnaires (Quality of Life Index, Rating Question Form, Heart Failure Symptom Checklist, Sickness Impact Profile, LVAD Stressor Scale, Jalowiec Coping Scale), which were collated into booklets, had acceptable reliability and validity. Longitudinal analyses were performed in 2 steps using 1-sample t-tests and linear mixed effects modeling., Results: Perception of QOL and health status were fairly good both before and after discharge of LVAD patients. Discharge predicted increased satisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life; decreased overall and psychologic stress and stress related to family and friends, self-care and work/school/finances; and decreased physical and self-care disability., Conclusions: QOL outcomes improved from before to after hospital discharge in LVAD patients awaiting heart transplantation. As LVADs potentially become available as destination therapy, in addition to being successful bridges to heart transplantation, QOL outcomes will become more important to study.

Objectives: To describe quality-of-life outcomes; determine relationships between quality of life and demographic, physical, psychosocial, and clinical variables; and identify predictors of quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device., Methods: Patients who received either an implantable pneumatic (n = 38) or a vented electric (n = 54) left ventricular assist device as a bridge to heart transplantation between August 1, 1994, and August 31, 1999, completed 6 instruments used to measure quality of life andfactors related to quality of life. Data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlations, Mann-Whitney U tests, and forward, stepwise multiple regression., Results: Overall satisfaction with quality of life was quite high as determined from the total score on the Quality of Life Index (mean = 0.69). Patients were very satisfied with the implantation and thought that they would do well after future heart transplant surgery. Patients had a moderate level of stress. Significant predictors of overall quality of life were psychological symptoms, stress, and race; these accounted for 46% of variance in quality of life., Conclusions: Patients were satisfied with their quality of life at 1 month after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. However, they were least satisfied with their health and functioning and yet were optimistic about how well they thought they would do after heart transplantation. Psychological factors were the strongest predictors of satisfaction with overall quality of life.

Background: The successful use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation has prompted our examination of quality of life (QOL) outcomes. The purposes of this study are to describe QOL in patients 1 to 2 weeks after LVAD implantation and to compare QOL in a smaller cohort of patients from before to 1 to 2 weeks after surgery., Methods: Data were collected from a convenience sample of 81 patients who completed booklets of questionnaires that measure domains of QOL 1 to 2 weeks after LVAD insertion and from 30 of 81 patients who completed booklets at both the pre-implantation and post-implantation periods. Patients completed booklets of 6 to 8 self-reporting instruments, with acceptable reliability and validity. Data were analyzed using descriptive and comparative statistics (chi-square, Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests) with p = 0.01 considered statistically significant., Results: One to 2 weeks after LVAD implantation, patients were quite satisfied with their lives, experienced moderately low amounts of stress, coped well, and perceived themselves as having good health and QOL, low symptom distress, and moderately low functional disability. Patients reported significantly better QOL, more satisfaction with health and functioning, and were significantly less distressed by symptoms from immediately pre-operatively to post-operatively. However, patients reported significantly more self-care disability and more dissatisfaction with socioeconomic areas of life from before to immediately after surgery. Psychological distress was low and did not change with time., Conclusion: Given that QOL improved from before to after LVAD implantation, our findings provide a springboard for investigation of the impact of LVADs on long-term QOL outcomes.

Implantation of left ventricular assist systems (LVASs) is becoming more prevalent for patients with end-stage heart disease who are awaiting cardiac transplantation. The original intent of the LVAS was to provide an alternative to transplantation, but until recently, the LVAS has been approved only as a bridge to transplantation. Now that bridging to transplantation for patients with LVASs has exceeded 2-year periods, permanent implantation is being done as an alternative to transplantation. This article reviews the fundamental components of the HeartMate Vented Electric LVAS (Thermo Cardiosystems, Inc, Woburn, MA) with a focus on patient complications and nursing implications. Additionally, the intraoperative implantation procedure is presented. Finally, ethical and financial considerations related to permanent LVAS implantation are discussed.