Does Elective or Emergent Operative Status Influence Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices?
Background: Acuity models to predict survival after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation do not include operative status as one of the calculated variables. The effect of elective versus emergent LVAD implantation on outcomes has not been examined.
Methods: Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on operative status (elective versus emergent). Variables were compared to determine whether there were differences in outcomes between elective versus emergent LVAD recipients
Results: Of the 130 patients, 59 underwent an elective procedure, whereas 71 had their LVAD implanted as an urgent/emergent operation. Patients in the urgent/emergent cohort had significantly worse preoperative hepatic and renal function and higher central venous pressures. Survival rates at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years were analogous for both cohorts. Patients in the emergent cohort had a higher incidence of postoperative right ventricular failure, with the requirement for short-term right ventricular support in 9.9% versus 1.7% (P = 0.054). The incidence of other LVAD-related complications, were similar in both groups. Emergency status did not predict postoperative mortality in univariate analysis.
Conclusions: Although patients who underwent emergent LVAD implantations had worse preoperative renal and liver function and a higher incidence of postoperative right ventricular failure, they exhibited similar midterm survival and a similar incidence of other postoperative complications.
Barbone A, Rao V, Oz MC, Naka Y. 2002. LVAD Support in patients with bioprosthetic valves. Ann Thorac Surg 74:232-4.nBoyle AJ, Ascheim DD, Russo MJ, et al. 2011. Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant 30:402-7.nCraver JM, Weintraub WS, Jones EL, Guyton RA, Hatcher CR Jr. 1992. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary angioplasty. A 10-year experience. Ann Surg 215:425-33; discussion 433-4.nChristakis GT, Weisel RD, David TE, Salerno TA, Ivanov J. 1988. Predictors of operative survival after valve replacement. Circulation 78(3 Pt 2):I25-34.nCowger J, Sundareswaran K, Rogers JG, et al. 2013. Predicting survival in patients receiving continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: the HeartMate II risk score. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:313-21.nCzer LS, Gray RJ, DeRobertis MA, et al. 1984. Mitral valve replacement: impact of coronary artery disease and determinants of prognosis after revascularization. Circulation 70(3 Pt 2):I198-207.nGeissler HJ, Hölzl P, Marohl S, et al. 2000. Risk stratification in heart surgery: comparison of six score systems. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:400-6.nGranton J, Cheng D. 2008. Risk stratification models for cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 12:167-74.nJohn R, Kamdar F, Liao K, Colvin-Adams M, Boyle A, Joyce L. 2008. Improved survival and decreasing incidence of adverse events using the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device as a bridge-to-transplant. Ann Thorac Surg 86:1227-35.nKirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, et al. 2013. Fifth INTERMACS annual report: risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant 32:141-56.nKolh P. 2006. Importance of risk stratification models in cardiac surgery. Eur Heart J 27:768-9.nLaPar DJ, Hennessy S, Fonner E, Kern JA, Kron IL, Ailawadi G. 2010. Does urgent or emergent status influence choice in mitral valve operations? An analysis of outcomes from the Virginia Cardiac Surgery Quality Initiative. Ann Thorac Surg 90:153-60.nLietz K, Long JW, Kfoury AG, et al. 2007. Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation as destination therapy in the post-REMATCH era: implications for patient selection. Circulation 116:497-505.nMiller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, et al. 2007. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med 357:885-96.nNilsson J, Algotsson L, Höglund P, Lührs C, Brandt J. 2006. Comparison of 19 pre-operative risk stratification models in open-heart surgery. Eur Heart J 27:867-74.nOz MC, Goldstein DJ, Pepino P, et al. 1995. Screening scale predicts patients successfully receiving long-term implantable left ventricular assist devices. Circulation 92(9 Suppl):II169-73.nPagani FD, Miller LW, Russell SD, et al. 2009. Extended mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:312-21.nSlaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, et al. 2009. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med 361:2241-51.nSlaughter MS, Pagani FD, Rogers JG, et al. 2010. Clinical management of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in advanced heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant 29:S1-39.nRose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. 2001. Long-term use of left ventricular assist devices for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med 345:1435-43.nSong HK, Kindem M, Bavaria JE, et al. 2012. Long-term implications of emergency versus elective proximal aortic surgery in patients with Marfan syndrome in the Genetically Triggered Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Cardiovascular Conditions Consortium Registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143:282-6.nStark KS, Satler LF, Krucoff MW, Rackley CE, Kent KM. 1990. Myocardial salvage after failed coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:78-82.nStepanenko A, Potapov EV, Jurmann B, et al. 2010. Outcomes of elective versus emergent permanent mechanical circulatory support in the elderly: a single-center experience. J Heart Lung Transplant 29:61-5.nStevenson LW, Pagani FD, Young JB, et al. 2009. INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 28:535-41.nTeuteberg JJ, Ewald GA, Adamson RM, et al. 2012. Risk assessment for continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: does the destination therapy risk score work? An analysis of over 1,000 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:44-51.nThourani VH, Weintraub WS, Craver JM, et al. 2000. Influence of concomitant CABG and urgent/emergent status on mitral valve replacement surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 70:778-83; discussion 783-4.nWendt D, Osswald BR, Kayser K, et al. 2009. Society of Thoracic Surgeons score is superior to the EuroSCORE determining mortality in high-risk patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 88:468-74; discussion 474-5.nYang C, Li D, Mennett R, et al. 2012 Urgent aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: does an ‘urgent’ status increase morbidity and mortality? J Heart Valve Dis 21:487-93.n
How to Cite
Author Disclosure & Copyright Transfer Agreement
In order to publish the original work of another person(s), The Heart Surgery Forum® must receive an acknowledgment of the Author Agreement and Copyright Transfer Statement transferring to Forum Multimedia Publishing, L.L.C., a subsidiary of Carden Jennings Publishing Co., Ltd. the exclusive rights to print and distribute the author(s) work in all media forms. Failure to check Copyright Transfer agreement box below will delay publication of the manuscript.
A current form follows:
The author(s) hereby transfer(s), assign(s), or otherwise convey(s) all copyright ownership of the manuscript submitted to Forum Multimedia Publishing, LLC (Publisher). The copyright transfer covers the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute the article and the material contained therein throughout the world in all languages and in all media of expression now known or later developed, including but not limited to reprints, photographic reproduction, microfilm, electronic data processing (including programming, storage, and transmission to other electronic data record(s), or any other reproductions of similar nature), and translations.
However, Publisher grants back to the author(s) the following:
- The right to make and distribute copies of all or part of this work for use of the author(s) in teaching;
- The right to use, after publication in The Heart Surgery Forum, all or part of the material from this work in a book by the author(s), or in a collection of work by the author(s);
- The royalty-free right to make copies of this work for internal distribution within the institution/company that employs the author(s) subject to the provisions below for a work-made-for-hire;
- The right to use figures and tables from this work, and up to 250 words of text, for any purpose;
- The right to make oral presentations of material from this work.
Publisher reserves the right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. To republish, such third parties must obtain written permission from the Publisher. (This is in accordance with the Copyright Statute, United States Code, Title 17. Exception: If all authors were bona fide officers or employees of the U.S. Government at the time the paper was prepared, the work is a “work of the US Government” (prepared by an officer or employee of the US Government as part of official duties), and therefore is not subject to US copyright; such exception should be indicated on signature lines. If this work was prepared under US Government contract or grant, the US Government may reproduce, royalty-free, all or portions of this work and may authorize others to do so, for official US Government purposes only, if the US Government contract or grant so requires.
I have participated in the conception and design of this work and in the writing of the manuscript and take public responsibility for it. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship has been published, has been submitted for publication elsewhere, or will be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by The Heart Surgery Forum, except as described in an attachment. I have reviewed this manuscript (original version) and approve its submission. If I am listed above as corresponding author, I will provide all authors with information regarding this manuscript and will obtain their approval before submitting any revision. I attest to the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of the content of the manuscript and understand that Publisher assumes no responsibility for the validity, accuracy, and legitimacy of its content. I warrant that this manuscript is original with me and that I have full power to make this Agreement. I warrant that it contains no matter that is libelous or otherwise unlawful or that invades individual privacy or infringes any copyright or other proprietary right. I agree to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless of and from any claim made against Publisher that relates to or arises out of the publication of the manuscript and agree that this indemnification shall include payment of all costs and expenses relating to the defense of any such claim, including all reasonable attorney’s fees.
I warrant that I have no financial interest in the drugs, devices, or procedures described in the manuscript (except as disclosed in the attached statement).
I state that the institutional Human Subjects Committee and/or the Ethics Committee approved the clinical protocol reported in this manuscript for the use of experimental techniques, drugs, or devices in human subjects and appropriate informed consent documents were utilized.
Furthermore, I state that any and all animals used for experimental purposes received humane care in USDA registered facilities in compliance with the “Principles of Laboratory Animal Care” formulated by the National Society for Medical Research and the “Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” prepared by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources and published by the National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1985).