Epistaxis in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices - Incidence, Risk Factors, and Implications

Device-related epistaxis risk: continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of device-dependent factors on epistaxis episodes comparing patients supported with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) to patients under the same antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent CF-LVAD between 2012 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively from the institutionally adopted electronic database. Patients who underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) surgery receiving the same anticoagulant and antiaggregant therapy were included as a control group. Demographics, epistaxis episodes, and nonepistaxis bleeding between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients met the inclusion criteria (61 patients CF-LVAD group, 118 patients MVR group). The median (range) follow-up periods for the study (CF-LVAD) and control (MVR) groups were 370 (2819) and 545.70 (2356) days, respectively. There was a significant difference for frequency of bleeding episodes per month between CF-LVAD and MVR groups (p = 0.003 < 0.05). The most common site of bleeding was the anterior septum in both groups (90.9% for the CF-MVR group and 100% for the MVR group). While 14 patients (23%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the CF-LVAD group, only two patients (1.7%) had nonepistaxis bleeding in the MVR group. There were significant differences in nonepistaxis bleeding rates between the CF-LVAD and MVR groups (χ²=19.79, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both epistaxis and nonepistaxis bleeding rates were higher in the CF-LVAD group than in the MVR group. This suggests that the use of CF-LVAD support could directly increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2A (Etiology/Harm).

Algorithms to guide ambulance clinicians in the management of emergencies in patients with implanted rotary left ventricular assist devices

Advances in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of adult LVAD recipients in the community. However, device failure, stroke, bleeding, LVAD thrombosis and systemic infection can be life-threatening emergencies. Currently, four LVAD systems are implanted in six UK transplant centres, each of which provides device-specific information to local emergency services. This has resulted in inconsistent availability and content of information with the risks of delayed or inappropriate decision-making. In order to improve patient safety, a consortium of UK healthcare professionals with expertise in LVADs developed universally applicable prehospital emergency algorithms. Guidance was framed as closely as possible on the standard ABCDE approach to the assessment of critically ill patients.