Outcomes for Patients With Diabetes After Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Effect of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device - Analysis of Data From a Japanese National Database

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to investigate the effect of preoperative diabetes on all-cause mortality and major postoperative complications among patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) by using data from a national database.Methods and Results: The 545 study patients who underwent primary HeartMateII implantation between 2013 and 2019 were divided into 2 groups according to their diabetes mellitus (DM) status; patients with DM (n=116) and patients without DM (n=429). First, the on-device survival and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. Second, after adjusting for patients' backgrounds, the change of laboratory data in the 2 groups were compared. Overall, on-device survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was almost equivalent between the 2 groups; it was 95%, 94%, and 91% in patients without DM, and 93%, 91%m and 91% in patients with DM (P=0.468) The incidence of adverse events was similar between 2 groups of patients, except for driveline exit site infection in the adjusted cohort. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed younger age (HR: 0.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-0.99, P=0.001) and presence of DM (HR: 1.83 (95% CI: 1.14-2.88), P=0.016) as significant predictors of driveline infection. Laboratory findings revealed no differences between groups throughout the periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical results after LVAD implantation in DM patients were comparable with those in non-DM patients, except for the driveline exit site infection.

Patient factors associated with left ventricular assist device infections: A scoping review

Infections are widely prevalent in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients and associated with adverse events including mortality and rehospitalizations. Current evidence examining factors associated with infections in this setting predominantly comprises single-center observational data. We performed a scoping review to systematically summarize all existing studies examining patient-related factors associated with infections after LVAD implantation. Studies published between 01/06 and 02/19 were identified through searching 5 bibliographic databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Inclusion criteria required examination of patient-related factors associated with infections among recipients of contemporary implantable, continuous flow LVADs. Key study characteristics were extracted by four independent reviewers and current literature described narratively. All analyses took place between February 2019 and May 2021. A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies were observational, and most commonly focused on driveline infections (n = 17). Factors studied most commonly included body composition (n = 8), diabetes and other comorbidities (n = 8), and psychosocial/socio-economic factors (n = 6). Studies were frequently single-center with heterogeneity in definition of infectious outcomes as well as exposure variables. Patient race and sex did not correlate with infection risk. There was no consistent association noted between obesity, diabetes, or psychosocial/socio-economic factors and infections in LVAD recipients. Two studies reported a significant association between malnutrition and hypoalbuminemia and post implant infections. This review summarizes 31 studies that described patient-related factors associated with infection after LVAD implantation. Patient related comorbidities, especially body composition and diabetes, were most commonly evaluated, but were not consistently associated with infections after LVAD implantation.

The impact of diabetes on short-, intermediate- and long-term mortality following left ventricular assist device implantation

OBJECTIVES

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a frequent comorbidity among patients suffering from advanced heart failure necessitating a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of type 2 DM on early and long-term outcomes of patients following an LVAD implant.

METHODS

We performed an observational cohort study in a large tertiary care centre in Israel. All data of patients who underwent a continuous flow LVAD implant between 2006 and 2020 were extracted from our departmental database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (patients without diabetes) and group II (patients with diabetes). We compared short-term (30-day and 3-month) mortality, intermediate-term (1- and 3-year) mortality and long-term (5 year) mortality between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The study population included 154 patients. Group I (patients without diabetes) comprised 88 patients and group II (patients with diabetes) comprised 66 patients. The mean follow-up duration was 38.2 ± 30.3 months. Short- and intermediate-term mortality (30 days, 1 year and 3 years) was higher in the group with DM compared with the group without DM but did not reach any statistically significant difference: 16.1% vs 9.8% (P = 0.312), 24.2% vs 17.3% (P = 0.399) and 30.6% vs 21.9% (P = 0.127) respectively. Long-term 5-year mortality was significantly higher in the group with DM compared to the group without: 38.7% vs 24.4% (P = 0.038). Furthermore, predictors of long-term mortality included diabetes (hazard ratio 2.09, confidence interval 1.34-2.84, P = 0.004), as demonstrated by regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with diabetes and those without diabetes have similar 30-day and short- and intermediate-term mortality rates. The mortality risk of diabetic patients begins to increase 3 years after an LVAD implant. Diabetes is an independent predictor of long-term, 5-year mortality after an LVAD implant.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethical Committee of Sheba Medical Centre, Israel, on 2 December 2014, Protocol 4257.

HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge

The growing population of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)‐supported patients increases the probability of an LVAD‐ supported patient hospitalized in the internal or surgical wards with certain expected device related, and patient‐device interaction complication as well as with any other comorbidities requiring hospitalization. In this third part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD‐supported patients for the non‐LVAD specialist healthcare provider, definitions and structured approach to the hospitalized LVAD‐supported patient are presented including blood pressure assessment, medical therapy of the LVAD supported patient, and challenges related to anaesthesia and non‐cardiac surgical interventions. Finally, important aspects to consider when discharging an LVAD patient home and palliative and end‐of‐life approaches are described.

New Onset Diabetes Mellitus After Adult Heart Transplantation and the Risk of Renal Dysfunction or Mortality

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) may occur either pre-heart transplant (HT) or as new onset DM post-HT. We sought to define the contemporary incidence of post-HT DM, evaluate risk factors for post-HT DM, and assess the impact of post-HT DM on major outcomes.

METHODS

The cohort included International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry adult primary HT-alone recipients, transplanted January 1995-June 2017, who survived to 1 year post-HT. DM status was characterized as (1) No DM pre- or post-HT; (2) Pre-HT DM; or (3) Post-HT DM (onset within 5 years of HT). Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify risk factors for post-HT DM onset, as well as risk factors for post-HT severe renal dysfunction and death/retransplantation.

RESULTS

Of 26 263 eligible subjects, 57% had no DM pre- or post-HT, 22% had pre-HT DM; 21% had new onset post-HT DM. Risk factors for the development of post-HT DM included use of tacrolimus or steroids at 1-year post-HT, as well as with higher recipient age, female sex, ischemic cardiomyopathy, higher body mass index (BMI), pre-HT dialysis, and pre-HT steroid use. Post-HT DM within 5 years was associated with increased subsequent severe renal dysfunction (hazard ratio, HR, 1.89; 95% CI 1.77, 2.01) and death/retransplantation (HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.32, 1.45), compared to patients without post-HT DM.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-HT DM is common, occurring in 21% of recipients within 5 years of HT. Post-HT DM is associated with increased risk of severe renal dysfunction and death or retransplantation.

The Impact of Left Ventricular Assist Device Infections on Postcardiac Transplant Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are associated with numerous short- and long-term complications, including infection. The impact LVAD infections have on clinical outcomes after transplantation is not well established. We sought to determine whether the presence of infection while on LVAD support negatively influences outcomes after cardiac transplantation. We searched electronic databases and bibliographies for full text studies that identified LVAD infections during support and also reported on posttransplant outcomes. A meta-analysis of posttransplant survival was conducted using a random effects model. Of 2,373 records, 13 bridge to transplant (BTT) cohort studies were selected (n = 6,631, 82% male, mean age 50.7 ± 2.7 years). A total of 6,067 records (91.5%) received transplant. There were 3,718 (56.1%) continuous-flow LVADs (CF-LVADs), 1,752 (26.4%) pulsatile LVADs, and 1,161 (17.5%) unknown type records. A total of 2,586 records (39.0%) developed LVAD infections. Patients with LVAD infections were younger (50.5 ± 1.5 vs. 51.3 ± 1.5, p = 0.02), had higher body mass indeices (BMIs) (28.4 ± 0.7 vs. 26.8 ± 0.4, p < 0.01), and longer LVAD support times (347.0 ± 157.6 days vs. 180.2 ± 106.0 days, p < 0.01). Meta-analysis demonstrated increased posttransplant mortality in those patients who had an LVAD infection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.30, 95% CI: 1.16-1.46, p < 0.001). Subgroup meta-analyses by continuous-flow and pulsatile device type demonstrated significant increased risk of death for both types of devices (HR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.22-1.76, p < 0.001 and 1.71, 95% CI: 1.19-2.45, p = 0.004, respectively). Patients who develop LVAD infections are younger, have higher BMIs and longer LVAD support times. Our data suggests that LVAD-related infections result in a 30% increase in postcardiac transplantation mortality. Strategies to prevent LVAD infections should be implemented to improve posttransplant outcomes in this high-risk population.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Risk for Adverse Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients With Versus Without Diabetes Mellitus

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are known to have reduced life expectancy and be at increased risk for multiple morbidities including serious infection. However, published data on DM outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are sparse, inconsistent and individual studies are small with limited power. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival and adverse events post-LVAD in DM versus non-DM (NDM) patients. Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Central databases were searched for studies comparing outcomes in DM and NDM patients who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced heart failure. Results were reported as random effect risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We identified 5 retrospective cohort studies, at low risk of bias, reporting on 1,351 patients (n = 488 DM). There was increased 30-day mortality (RR 1.57 [1.00, 2.47]; p = 0.05; I² = 0%) among DM versus NDM. The DM and NDM groups did not differ significantly in terms of 1-year mortality (RR 1.15 [0.98, 1.35]; p = 0.08; I² = 39%), device-related infection (RR 1.05 [0.92, 1.19]; p = 0.88; I² = 0%), ischemic stroke (RR 1.29 [0.91, 1.83]; p = 0.69; I² = 0%), hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.10 [0.42, 2.83]; p = 0.85; I² = 69%), or bleeding (RR 1.06 [0.80, 1.40]; p = 0.70; I² = 27%). After LVAD implantation, patients with DM, versus patients without, have a modestly elevated 30-day mortality rate. However, 1-year mortality and morbidity did not differ.

Prediction of acute kidney injury after left ventricular assist device implantation: Evaluation of clinical risk scores

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequent in patients scheduled for implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and associated with increased mortality. Although several risk models for the prediction of postoperative renal replacement therapy (RRT) have been developed for cardiothoracic patients, none of these scoring systems have been validated in LVAD patients. A retrospective, single center analysis of all patients undergoing LVAD implantation between September 2013 and July 2016 was performed. Primary outcome was AKI requiring RRT within 14 days after surgery. The predictive capacity of the Cleveland Clinic Score (CCS), the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score (STS), and the Simplified Renal Index Score (SRI) were evaluated. 76 patients underwent LVAD implantation, 19 patients were excluded due to preoperative RRT. RRT was associated with a prolonged ventilation time, length of stay on the ICU and 180 day mortality (14(60.9%) vs 6(17.6%), P < .01). Whereas the Thakar Score (7.43 ± 1.75 vs 6.44 ± 1.44, P = .02) and the Mehta Score (28.12 ± 15.08 vs 21.53 ± 5.43, P = .02) were significantly higher in patients with RRT than in those without RRT, the SRI did not differ between these groups (3.96 ± 1.15 vs 3.44 ± 1.05, P = .08). Using ROC analyses, CCS, STS, and SRI showed moderate predictive capacity for RRT with an AUC of 0.661 ± 0.073 (P = .040), 0.637 ± 0.079 (P = .792), and 0.618 ± 0.075 (P = .764), respectively, with comparable accuracy in the Delong test. Using univariate logistic regression analysis, only the De Ritis Ratio (OR 2.67, P = .034) and MELD (OR 1.11, P = .028) were identified as predictors of postoperative RRT. Risk scores which are predictive in general cardiac surgery cannot predict RRT in patients after LVAD implantation. Therefore, it seems to be necessary to develop a specific risk score for this patient population.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America: This statement does not represent an update of the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA heart failure guideline update

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Heart Failure, A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association and Heart Failure Society of America

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a risk factor for incident heart failure and increases the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with established disease. Secular trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and heart failure forecast a growing burden of disease and underscore the need for effective therapeutic strategies. Recent clinical trials have demonstrated the shared pathophysiology between diabetes mellitus and heart failure, the synergistic effect of managing both conditions, and the potential for diabetes mellitus therapies to modulate the risk of heart failure outcomes. This scientific statement on diabetes mellitus and heart failure summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and impact of diabetes mellitus and its control on outcomes in heart failure; reviews the approach to pharmacological therapy and lifestyle modification in patients with diabetes mellitus and heart failure; highlights the value of multidisciplinary interventions to improve clinical outcomes in this population; and outlines priorities for future research.

Clinical Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Short-Term Outcomes andIn-Hospital Mortality of Cardiac Mechanical Support with Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD): A Retrospective Study from a National Database

BACKGROUND

Cardiac support with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) is a growing field. LVAD are increasingly used for patients with advanced congestive heart failure. Multiple studies have evaluated the outcomes of cardiac support with LVAD in patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM), yet we still have conflicting results. This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of diabetes mellitus on patients undergoing cardiac support with LVAD.

METHODS

Diabetic patients who underwent mechanical support with LVAD between 2011 and 2014 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). The primary outcome was the effect of diabetes mellitus on inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were the impact of diabetes on other immediate post-LVAD complications and the cost of hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression models analysis was performed to address potential confounding.

RESULTS

After adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level characteristics, diabetic patients who underwent cardiac support with LVAD have no significant increase in in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.79, 95% CI (0.57-1.10), p = 0.166), post-LVAD short-term complications and cost of hospitalization (OR: 0.97, 95% CI (0.93-1.01), p = 0.102).

CONCLUSION

Cardiac mechanical support with LVAD implantation is feasible and relatively safe in patients with diabetes and stage-D heart failure as a bridge for transplantation or as destination therapy for patients who are not candidates for transplantation. However, further trials and studies using bigger study sample and more comprehensive databases, need to be conducted for a stronger and more valid evidence.

Risk of left ventricular assist device driveline infection: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve quality of life in end-stage heart failure but can cause serious complications such as infections with driveline infection causing significant morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to synthesize the literature to determine variables associated with driveline infection and seek opportunities to improve nursing management of LVAD drivelines.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed. The evidence was synthesized using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice tools and the Chain of Infection epidemiological framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies focused on vulnerable host, portal of entry, and causative organism aspects of the Chain of Infection. Increased BMI, younger age, exposed driveline velour showed increased risk of infection and driveline dressing protocol change showed lower risk of infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some risk factors for infection were identified, evidence is still limited. Nurses are uniquely positioned to improve driveline management, disrupting the chain of infection.

Left ventricular assist device implantation improves glycaemic control: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM) often coexist and have bidirectional association. Advanced HF is associated with worsened glycaemic control. This meta-analysis investigated the effects of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on markers of DM control.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE and Cochrane through October 2017 to identify studies evaluating advanced HF patients who had received an LVAD and reported markers of glycaemic control. The primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and the secondary outcomes included fasting glucose, daily insulin requirements, and body mass index (BMI). Outcomes were pooled using a Hartung-Knapp random-effects model producing a mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Thirteen studies, including 820 participants, were included. HbA1c was 1.23% lower following LVAD implantation (95% CI -1.49 to -0.98). Greater HbA1c reductions were seen with higher pre-LVAD values. Similarly, fasting plasma glucose (-24.4 mg/dL, 95% CI -33.4 to -15.5), daily insulin requirements (-18.8 units, 95% CI -28.8 to -8.7), and serum creatinine levels (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.06) were significantly lower than pre-LVAD levels. We saw no difference in BMI (MD 0.09, 95% CI -1.24 to 1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD implantation was associated with significant improvement in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose, and daily insulin need in advanced HF patients.

The Metabolic Syndrome, Cardiovascular Fitness and Survival in Patients With Advanced Systolic Heart Failure

The metabolic syndrome (MetS), which incorporates insulin resistance, visceral adiposity, and dyslipidemia, is an independent risk factor for incident heart failure (HF), but the impact on survival is uncertain. We sought to determine the relation between the metabolic syndrome and survival in ambulatory systolic HF patients and the impact of MetS on cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET). We identified adults with ejection fraction ≤40% who underwent CPETs between 2000 and 2011. Baseline MetS status was defined by 3 or more of: (1) Triglycerides ≥150 mg/dl; (2) High density lipoprotein <40 mg/dl males or <50 mg/dl females; (3) Diabetes mellitus; (4) Hypertension; (5) Body mass index ≥35 kg/m². Minimally-adjusted (for age, sex, transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantation) and fully-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for all-cause mortality. MetS prevalence was 37% (716 of 1,953) and median follow-up 5 years. Mortality was 36% for +MetS and 29% for -MetS (p = 0.006), with highest mortality in the subgroup with both MetS plus diabetes (39%). The minimally-adjusted hazard ratio for mortality with MetS was 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 1.49, p = 0.004). After adjustment, MetS was no longer independently associated with mortality (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.19, p = 0.921). Patients with MetS achieved poorer CPET performance compared and MetS was independently associated with a lower peak VO₂. MetS was associated with a higher hazard of mortality in the minimally-adjusted model, which was primarily driven by the unfavorable impact of diabetes on mortality, but this association was no longer significant after full adjustment. In conclusion, there was no independent association between MetS and survival in an ambulatory systolic HF population.

Factors Associated With Prolonged Survival in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on factors predicting prolonged survival in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. We sought to identify patient characteristics and complications associated with prolonged survival.

METHODS

We conducted retrospective review of the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database, including primary continuous-flow LVAD recipients, between May 2012 and March 2013. Patients were identified as having survived with a device in place after 3 years or not, conditional on having initially survived 6 months. Patients who received a transplant, underwent explant due to recovery, or were lost to follow-up before 3 years were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated perioperative factors and adverse events within 6 months associated with long survival.

RESULTS

Of 1,116 patients who survived past the initial 6 months, 725 (65%) survived beyond 3 years. On univariate analysis, long-term survivors were significantly younger, were less likely to be white, supported for destination therapy, have diabetes, solid-organ cancer, or take amiodarone. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased odds of death at 3 years included diabetes, amiodarone use, and developing stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, hemolysis, or pump thrombosis within 6 months of implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative diabetes and amiodarone use were associated with poor long-term survival in LVAD recipients. Development of early complications of stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, hemolysis, or pump thrombosis was also associated with poor long-term survival. Early diagnosis and treatment of these complications may improve survival in LVAD recipients.

Influence of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND

Despite previous studies, the mortality risk of patients with diabetes mellitus after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant remains unclear. In addition, the relationship between the degree of glycemic control and long-term mortality risk in LVAD patients with diabetes has not been established.

METHODS

Ninety-five nondiabetic patients and 96 diabetic patients from the University of Rochester Medical Center who received a HeartMate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA) continuous-flow LVAD between May 2008 and June 2014 were included in this study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included rates of infection, neurologic dysfunction, renal dysfunction, and rehospitalization. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox models were utilized.

RESULTS

During follow-up, 32 diabetic patients (33%) and 15 nondiabetic patients (16%) died after LVAD implantation. Cumulative probability of death was higher for diabetic patients when compared with nondiabetic patients (42% versus 21% at 3 years, p = 0.013). There were no significant differences in overall rates of infection, neurologic dysfunction, and rehospitalization between the two groups. However, after an initial secondary outcome event, diabetic patients continued to have a higher mortality rate when compared with nondiabetic patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of death between diabetic patients with pre-LVAD hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0% and diabetic patients with pre-LVAD hemoglobin A1c 7.0% or greater (hazard ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 4.08, p = 0.223).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic patients who underwent LVAD implantation had a higher risk of death compared with nondiabetic patients. Adverse event rates did not differ between the two groups. Finally, the degree of glycemic control in diabetic patients before LVAD was not found to influence mortality.

Prevention and Treatment of Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Complications in Patients Supported by Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to describe the current knowledge in prevention and treatment of thrombotic (pump thrombosis and ischemic stroke) and bleeding (gastrointestinal and hemorrhagic stroke) complications in patients supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD).

RECENT FINDINGS

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are now widely used for the management of end-stage heart failure. Unfortunately, in spite of the indisputable positive impact LVADs have on patients, the frequency and severity of complications are limitations of this therapy. Stroke, pump thrombosis, and gastrointestinal bleeding are among the most serious and frequent complications in these patients. The balance between hemorrhagic and thrombotic complications in patients supported with CF-LVAD is difficult as most patients do not necessarily fit a "bleeder" or a "clotter" profile but rather move from one side to the other of the thrombotic/bleeding spectrum. Further research is necessary to better understand the risk factors and mechanisms involved in the development of these complications.

Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients Supported With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Background

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. The effect of DM on post–left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation outcomes is unclear. This study sought to investigate whether patients with DM had worse outcomes than patients without DM after LVAD implantation and whether LVAD support resulted in a better control of DM.

Methods and Results

We retrospectively reviewed 341 consecutive adults who underwent implantation of LVAD from 2007 to 2016. Patient characteristics and adverse events were studied and compared between patients with and without DM. One hundred thirty-one patients (38%) had DM. Compared with patients without DM, those with DM had higher rates of ischemic cardiomyopathy, LVAD implantation as destination therapy, and increased baseline body mass index. In a proportional hazards (Cox) model with adjustment for relevant covariates and median follow-up of 16.1 months, DM was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.18–2.53; P =0.005) and increased risk of nonfatal LVAD-related complications, including a composite of stroke, pump thrombosis, and device infection (hazard ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.35–3.18; P =0.001). Preoperative hemoglobin A1c was not significantly associated with mortality or adverse events among patients with DM. LVAD implantation resulted in a remarkable decrease in hemoglobin A1c levels (7.4±1.9 pre-LVAD versus 6.0±1.5 and 6.3±1.4 after 3 and 12 months post-LVAD, respectively; P <0.0001) and a significant reduction in requirements of DM medications.

Conclusions

DM is associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality and major adverse events despite favorable glycemic control after LVAD implantation.

The inodilator levosimendan in repetitive doses in the treatment of advanced heart failure

Inotropes may be an appropriate response for some patients with advanced heart failure who remain highly symptomatic despite optimization of evidence-based therapy. These patients need to be supported waiting for a heart transplant or ventricular assist device, or may be candidates for inotropy as an intervention in its own right to maintain a patient in the best achievable circumstances. Objectives in such a situation include relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and reducing unplanned hospitalizations and the costs associated with such admissions. Levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer and potassium channel opener with inotrope and vasodilator actions, has emerged as a potentially valuable addition to the armamentarium in this context, used in repeated or intermittent cycles of therapy. Detailed proposals and guidance are offered for the identification of candidate patients with good prospects of a beneficial response to levosimendan, and for the safe and effective implementation of a course of therapy.