Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2014 Mar;97(3):894-900. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.019. Epub 2013 Nov 23.
As waiting time for heart transplantation has increased, ventricular assist devices have become critical for "bridging" patients with end-stage heart failure. Because most reported post-discharge experience is with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), we sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of home discharge on paracorporeal biventricular assist devices (BIVAD).
We retrospectively reviewed the hospital course and post-discharge outcomes of 46 consecutive patients who received paracorporeal VADs as bridge to transplant. The success of home discharge was assessed by frequency and reasons for hospital readmission and survival to transplant.
Thirty patients (65%) were successfully transferred from the intensive care unit and considered candidates for discharge. Of the 26 patients discharged home, 11 were supported with an LVAD and 15 with BIVADs. Median duration of support until transplant, explant, or death did not differ significantly between LVAD or BIVAD patients (91 days vs 158 days; p = 0.09). There were 26 readmissions for medical or device-related complications; 10 in 7 LVAD patients and 16 in 10 BIVAD patients, with no difference in median length of stay (17 days vs 25 days; p = 0.67). Out of hospital duration of support was similar between LVAD and BIVAD patients (61 days vs 66 days; p = 0.87) as were 6-month and 1-year event-free survival rates (p = 0.49).
Outcomes were similar in patients bridged to transplant on home paracorporeal BIVAD versus LVAD support. We recommend discharge for stable patients demonstrating device competency and adequate home care regardless of the need for univentricular or biventricular paracorporeal support.
随着心脏移植等待时间的延长,心室辅助设备对于晚期心力衰竭患者的“桥接”变得至关重要。由于大多数报告的出院后经验都是使用左心室辅助设备(LVAD),我们试图评估使用体外双心室辅助设备(BIVAD)进行家庭出院的安全性和可行性。
我们回顾性地分析了 46 例连续接受体外 VAD 桥接移植的患者的住院过程和出院后结局。通过住院再入院的频率和原因以及移植存活来评估家庭出院的成功。
30 例患者(65%)成功从重症监护病房转出,被认为有出院的资格。在 26 例出院回家的患者中,11 例使用 LVAD 支持,15 例使用 BIVAD。LVAD 或 BIVAD 患者的移植前、设备移除前或死亡前的中位支持时间无显著差异(91 天与 158 天;p=0.09)。因医疗或设备相关并发症共发生 26 次再入院;7 例 LVAD 患者中有 10 次,10 例 BIVAD 患者中有 16 次,住院时间中位数无显著差异(17 天与 25 天;p=0.67)。LVAD 和 BIVAD 患者的院外支持时间相似(61 天与 66 天;p=0.87),6 个月和 1 年的无事件生存率也相似(p=0.49)。
在接受家庭体外 BIVAD 或 LVAD 支持桥接移植的患者中,结局相似。我们建议对表现出设备功能和足够家庭护理能力的稳定患者进行出院,无论是否需要单侧或双侧体外支持。