Readmissions after Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Differences Observed between Two Contemporary Device Types

Nicholas A. Haglund, Mary E. Davis, Nicole M. Tricarico, Mary E. Keebler, Simon Maltais

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43% or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57%, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66% vs. HW 20, 44%; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87% of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)410-416
Number of pages7
JournalASAIO Journal
Volume61
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Left ventricular assist devices
Heart-Assist Devices
Equipment and Supplies
Transplants
Infection
Cardiac Arrhythmias
Creatinine
Thrombosis
Stroke
Pumps
Hemorrhage

Keywords

  • heart failure
  • heart transplantation
  • hospital readmission
  • left ventricular assist device

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Biophysics
  • Medicine(all)
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Readmissions after Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation : Differences Observed between Two Contemporary Device Types. / Haglund, Nicholas A.; Davis, Mary E.; Tricarico, Nicole M.; Keebler, Mary E.; Maltais, Simon.

In: ASAIO Journal, Vol. 61, No. 4, 01.01.2015, p. 410-416.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Haglund, Nicholas A. ; Davis, Mary E. ; Tricarico, Nicole M. ; Keebler, Mary E. ; Maltais, Simon. / Readmissions after Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation : Differences Observed between Two Contemporary Device Types. In: ASAIO Journal. 2015 ; Vol. 61, No. 4. pp. 410-416.
@article{c6b551dbcd4840b08af9db4c44507443,
title = "Readmissions after Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Differences Observed between Two Contemporary Device Types",
abstract = "Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43{\%} or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57{\%}, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66{\%} vs. HW 20, 44{\%}; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87{\%} of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.",
keywords = "heart failure, heart transplantation, hospital readmission, left ventricular assist device",
author = "Haglund, {Nicholas A.} and Davis, {Mary E.} and Tricarico, {Nicole M.} and Keebler, {Mary E.} and Simon Maltais",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/MAT.0000000000000218",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "61",
pages = "410--416",
journal = "ASAIO Journal",
issn = "0162-1432",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Readmissions after Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

T2 - Differences Observed between Two Contemporary Device Types

AU - Haglund, Nicholas A.

AU - Davis, Mary E.

AU - Tricarico, Nicole M.

AU - Keebler, Mary E.

AU - Maltais, Simon

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43% or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57%, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66% vs. HW 20, 44%; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87% of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.

AB - Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43% or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57%, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66% vs. HW 20, 44%; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87% of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.

KW - heart failure

KW - heart transplantation

KW - hospital readmission

KW - left ventricular assist device

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937564449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937564449&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000218

DO - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000218

M3 - Article

C2 - 25806614

AN - SCOPUS:84937564449

VL - 61

SP - 410

EP - 416

JO - ASAIO Journal

JF - ASAIO Journal

SN - 0162-1432

IS - 4

ER -