Ventricular Assist Device Patients Have Different Clinical Outcomes and Altered Patterns of Bleeding with Intracranial Hemorrhage

Thrombotic and Hemorrhagic Complications Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement: An Emphasis on Gastrointestinal Bleeding, Stroke, and Pump Thrombosis

The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a mechanical circulatory support device that supports the heart failure patient as a bridge to transplant (BTT) or as a destination therapy for those who have other medical comorbidities or complications that disqualify them from meeting transplant criteria. In patients with severe heart failure, LVAD use has extended survival and improved signs and symptoms of cardiac congestion and low cardiac output, such as dyspnea, fatigue, and exercise intolerance. However, these devices are associated with specific hematologic and thrombotic complications. In this manuscript, we review the common hematologic complications of LVADs.

Medical and Surgical Management of Left Ventricular Assist Device-Associated Intracranial Hemorrhage

OBJECTIVES

Management of left ventricular assist device (LVAD)-associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is complicated by the competing concerns of hematoma expansion and the risk of thrombosis. Strategies include reversal or withholding of anticoagulation (AC) and neurosurgical (NSG) interventions. The consequences of these decisions can significantly impact both short- and long-term survival. Currently no guidelines exist. We reviewed medical and NSG practices following LVAD-associated ICH and analyzed outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data collected between 2012-2018 was performed. Survival probability following ICH was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Out of 283 patients, 32 (11%) had 34 ICHs: 16 intraparenchymal (IPH, 47%), 4 subdural (SDH, 12%), and 14 subarachnoid (SAH, 41%). IPH tended to occur sooner (median 138 [IQR 48 - 258] days post-LVAD placement) and be more neurologically devastating (mean GCS 11.4 [4.4]). Antithrombotics were reversed in 27 (79%); 1 thrombotic event occurred while off AC. Following resumption, re-hemorrhage occurred in 7 (25%), a median of 13 days (IQR 8-30) post-ICH. Five underwent NSG intervention and 6 (18%) went on to receive heart transplant. Overall, 30-day mortality was 26% (38% in IPH, 0% in SDH, and 29% in SAH), but rose to 44% at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

ICH is a common post-LVAD complication with high short- and long-term mortality, though ICH subtypes may not be equally devastating. Despite this, some may benefit from neurosurgical intervention and do well following cardiac transplant. Anticoagulation is frequently reversed after ICH. Resumption however should be approached cautiously in patients with LVADs given their possible baseline coagulopathy.

Clinical Impact of Hematoma Expansion in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients

BACKGROUND

Hematoma expansion (HE) is associated with poor outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), but the impact on patients with an left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unknown. We aimed to define the occurrence of HE in the LVAD population and to determine the association between HE and mortality.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of LVAD patients and intentionally matched anticoagulated controls without LVAD admitted to Columbia University Irving Medical Center with ICH between 2008 and 2019. We compared HE occurrence between patients with an LVAD and those without an LVAD using regression modeling, adjusting for factors known to influence HE. We evaluated pump thrombosis following anticoagulation reversal. We examined the association between HE and hospital mortality using Poisson regression modeling adjusting for factors associated with poor outcome.

RESULTS

Among 605 patients with an LVAD, we identified 28 patients with ICH meeting the study's inclusion criteria. Our LVAD ICH cohort was predominantly male (71%), with a mean age of 56 ± 10 years. The median baseline hematoma size was 20.1 mL³ (interquartile range [IQR], 8.6-46.9 mL³), and the median ICH score was 1 (IQR, 1-2). There was no significant difference in occurrence of HE in LVAD patients and matched non-LVAD patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4-4.2). There was an association between HE and in-hospital mortality in LVAD patients (adjusted OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.4-6.2).

CONCLUSIONS

HE occurrence appears to be similar in LVAD and non-LVAD patients. HE has a significant impact on LVAD ICH mortality, underscoring the importance of adequate coagulopathy reversal and blood pressure management in these patients.