Freund, Monique

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is a new therapy for advanced heart failure (HF). The number of HF patients eligible for LVAD and the cardiology providers’ comfort level with referral for LVAD remains unclear. Objective: To assess provider perception of LVAD candidacy and LVAD referral patterns in consecutive HF patients. Methods: Providers completed a survey for each HF patient seen between March 1, 2013 and April 26, 2013. The survey listed standard LVAD candidacy criteria and asked 1) if a patient was an LVAD candidate (yes, no, unsure); 2) reasons patients were not LVAD candidates (check list, table); and 3) whether the patient had been referred for LVAD evaluation (yes, no, unsure). Results: Patients (n=522) were seen in a tertiary HF outpatient clinic (n=357; 68%), a tertiary HF inpatient service (n=36; 7%), a tertiary general cardiology service (n=45; 9%) or a community based outpatient cardiac clinic (n=84; 16%) Median age of patients was 73 years and 65% were male. Provider assessment of LVAD candidacy was “no” in 443 (85%), “yes” in 35 (7%) and “unsure” in 43 (8%) with ineligibility for LVAD attributed to multiple concerns (Table). Ninety percent of patients considered “too old” for LVAD were over 78 years of age. Provider designation of LVAD candidacy as yes or unsure varied across practice setting: tertiary HF outpatient clinic, 12%; tertiary HF inpatient service, 42%; tertiary general cardiology service, 22%; and community based outpatient cardiac clinic, 13%. In patients with a provider designation of LVAD candidacy as yes or unsure (n=78), only 21 (27%) patients had been referred for LVAD evaluation. Conclusion: When provided with LVAD candidacy criteria, providers indicated 15% of HF patients were (7%) or were possibly (8%) LVAD candidates but indicated that few patients had undergone a formal LVAD evaluation. These data suggest that measures to improve evaluation of HF patients for LVAD are needed.

ObjectivesTo describe medium‐ to long‐term follow‐up of patients undergoing device closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) for stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).BackgroundTranscatheter device closure of PFO continues to be used for secondary prevention of cryptogenic stroke or TIA, but data are lacking regarding long‐term outcomes.MethodsWe reviewed the Mayo Clinic Rochester PFO database for patients who underwent device closure of PFO for secondary prevention of stroke/TIA from December 2001 to June 2012. Demographic, clinical, procedural, and follow‐up data were reviewed. Recurrence rate of stroke/TIA were calculated. Data were analyzed to identify risk factors of recurrent neurologic events.ResultsSeven hundred and thirty patients (mean age 53 years; 40% female) were included in our study. Most patients (72%) had cryptogenic stroke as their qualifying event for PFO closure. There were no procedure‐related deaths or strokes. The most commonly used device was the Amplatzer Septal Occluder (82%). Median follow‐up was 6 years. A 3.9% of patients had documented residual right‐to‐left shunting at last echocardiogram. Recurrent stroke and/or TIA were reported in 45 patients, (6.3% of patients with follow‐up data). Patients who experienced recurrent stroke/TIA were older and had a higher rate of diabetes and hypertension than those who did not. The presence of residual shunt did not correlate with risk of recurrent events.ConclusionsDevice closure of PFO can be performed safely with very good long‐term resolution of atrial shunting. Recurrent neurologic events after PFO closure may reflect additional comorbid risk factors unrelated to the potential for paradoxical embolism. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.