Background:
Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy can improve survival and quality of life in advanced heart failure (HF), but some patients may still do poorly after LVAD. Understanding the likelihood of experiencing poorer outcomes after LVAD can better inform patients and calibrate their expectations.
Methods:
We analyzed patients receiving LVAD therapy from January 2012 to October 2013 at a single, high-volume, high-acuity center. We defined a poor global outcome at 1 year after LVAD as the occurrence of death, disabling stroke (precluding transplant), poor patient-reported health status (most recent KCCQ at 3, 6, or 12 months < 45, corresponding to NYHA class IV), or recurrent HF (≥2 HF readmissions post-implant). We compared characteristics of those with and without poor global outcome.
Results:
Among 164 LVAD recipients who had 1-year outcomes data, mean age was 56, 76.7% were white, 20.9% were female, and 85.9% were INTERMACS Profile 1 or 2 (cardiogenic shock or declining despite inotropes). Poor global outcome occurred in 58 (35.4%) patients at 1 year, of whom 37 (63.8%) died, 17 (29.3%) had a most recent KCCQ score < 45, 3 (5.2%) had ≥2 HF readmissions, and 1 (1.7%) had a disabling stroke (Figure). Eight of the patients who died also experienced one of the three other poor outcomes prior to death. Patients who experienced a poor global outcome were more likely to be designated for destination therapy (46.4% vs. 23.6%, p=0.01) than bridge to transplant, have longer index admissions (median [IQR]: 39 [24, 57] days vs. 25 [18, 35] days, p=0.003), and have major GI bleeding (44.2% vs. 27.7%, p=0.056), and were less likely to undergo LVAD exchange (0% vs. 12.3%, p=0.004).
Conclusion:
In this large, single-center study assessing global outcome after LVAD implantation, we found that about a third of all patients had experienced a poor global outcome at 1 year. While LVAD therapy remains life-saving and the standard of care for many patients with advanced heart failure, these findings could help guide discussions with eligible patients and families. Future work should compare patients’ pre-LVAD expectations with likely outcomes and create risk models to estimate the probability of poorer outcomes for individual patients using pre-procedural factors.
Driveline Infection in Ventricular Assist Devices and Its Implication in the Present Era of Destination Therapy