Citations

International normalized ratio (INR) measurements manage risks of bleeding and clotting sequelae in the population with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Studies suggest that point-of-care (POC) INR does not significantly differ from plasma INR (P-INR) values in other patient populations, although this has not been validated in a multicenter LVAD study. We sought to determine whether POC-INR and P-INR values differ significantly in the LVAD population and reviewed patients with permanent LVAD implantation at seven institutions internationally. Our cohort comprised of 279 paired POC-INR and P-INR checks in patients supported on average 630 ± 598 days postimplant with predominately HeartWare, HeartMate II, and HeartMate III devices. The population averaged 57.9 years of age, and there were 86.7% male. We found no statistically significant difference between POC-INR and P-INR values. International normalized ratio accuracy correlated weakly with the time between INR measurements (p < 0.001). When the time difference was less than 4 hours, the difference between INR pairs was significantly lower than measurements greater than 8 hours (p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference when comparing paired INR values and time after implant to INR check (p = 0.43), age (p = 0.12), known coagulopathy (p = 0.12), bleeding history (p = 0.22), or thrombosis history (p = 0.34). This is the first large multicenter international study comparing POC-INR and P-INR measurements in patients with LVAD and found no statistically significant difference between either methods, particularly when measured within less than 4 hours of each other.

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) pump thrombosis occurs in up to 8.4% of patients within 3-months postimplantation. Thromboelastography (TEG) could be used to signal hypercoagulability at LVAD implantation to predict patients at high risk for thrombosis. We sought to evaluate whether TEG maximum amplitude (MA) hypercoagulability (MA ≥69 mm) at the time of LVAD implantation predicts pump thrombosis. A single center, retrospective, nested case–control study was conducted using patients from January 1, 2005, to March 31, 2015. Each pump thrombosis case was matched to two control subjects based on age ± 5 years, sex, and duration of follow-up. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed on the matched sets; the odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to estimate the relative risk. Thirty-seven age- and sex-matched case–control sets were included for a total of 111 study participants. TEG-MA hypercoagulability occurred in 10.8% of the case group versus 6.8% of controls. There was no association between TEG-MA hypercoagulability and device thrombosis (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 0.42–7.05, p = 0.46). Utilization of baseline TEG-MA hypercoagulability to detect individuals at risk for LVAD thrombosis is a novel concept. This study found no significant association between TEG-MA and LVAD thrombosis.

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.