DOCSLIB.ORG

Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices As Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: a Systematic Review Evidence-Based Synthesis Program Table 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices As Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: a Systematic Review Evidence-Based Synthesis Program Table 2 Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review Evidence-based Synthesis Program Table 2. Key Question #2: Patient Selection Study/Country/ Inclusion/Exclusion Funding Sample of Patients Outcomes & Baseline Correlates Study Quality Criteria Source Kirklin 20113 Inclusion Criteria: n = 385 Unspecified number and names of variables Patients eligible for destination therapy, but Case registered in HeartMate II (n=281, 73%) tested; reference groups for HR’s are the not all received HeartMate II 69 centers in INTERMACS complements of those described Most variables assessed before implantation U.S. HeartMate XVE (n=104, 27%) surgery FDA-approved 1) All-cause death within 30 days, n=35 Funding ventricular assist Mean Age (yr): 62 a) cardiogenic shock Measurements of potential predictors not Source: NIH, device implanted as Male: 84% HR = 3.5, p<0.01 standardized or described others destination therapy White: 76% b) need for concomitant surgery Presumably complete follow-up of deaths from June, 2006 to Black: 18% HR = 3.0, p=0.02 September 2010 c) 10 units higher BUN Most predicted probabilities and confidence INTERMACS CLASSIFICATION HR = 1.3, p=0.001 intervals not reported, no calibration or Cardiogenic shock: 9% validation of prediction model Progressive decline: 41% 2) All-cause deaths after 30 days, n=62 No assessment of whether or how much use Inotrope dependent: 26% a) HeartMate XVE vs HeartMate II of variables could improve patient selection or Recurrent decompensated heart HR = 2.75, p=0.002 outcomes failure: 15% interactions with other predictors not Greatly limited exertion: 7% reported Class IIIb: 2% b) pulmonary hypertension HR = 3.6, p=0.0001 REASONS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR c) 10 units lower sodium HEART TRANSPLANT HR = 2.1, p=0.005 Advanced age: 33% d) diabetes Renal dysfunction: 22% HR = 2.0, p=0.01 High body mass index: 16% e) age 70 vs 60 years Pulmonary hypertension: 12% HR = 1.8, p<0.0001 Other: 17% Levy 200933 Inclusion Criteria n=129 (some missing values Survival predictions made using variables in the Patients eligible for destination therapy, but none 20 centers in Participants in clinical needed for the prediction Seattle Heart Failure Model received HeartMate II U.S. trial of HeartMate model were imputed and use Variables assessed before implantation surgery VE for destination of inotropes or an intra-aortic Average estimated 1-YEAR SURVIVAL in Measurements of potential predictors not Funding therapy compared balloon pump and/or ventilator medical therapy arm (n= 37 deaths) standardized or described Source: to optimal medical were added to the prediction 30% vs 28% observed Thoratec Corp therapy (REMATCH model) Complete follow-up for deaths Study) n= 61 in medical therapy arm 81% had < 50% estimated 1-year survival No confidence intervals on predicted Note: guidelines for destination therapy probabilities in small groups, a little information Mean Age (yr): 67 recommend patient’s expected 1-year survival be about calibration and validity of predictions Male: 80% < 50% Little assessment of whether or how much use Mean LVEF: 17% Interaction between treatment effect (assist of variables could improve patient selection or NYHA class IV: 100% device versus medical therapy) and Seattle Heart outcomes IV inotrope: 56% Failure Score was not significant (p=0.86) No evidence risk score discriminates groups of Intra-aortic balloon pump: 8% patients that do or do not have a survival benefit Defibrillator: 35% 38 Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review Evidence-based Synthesis Program Study/Country/ Inclusion/Exclusion Funding Sample of Patients Outcomes & Baseline Correlates Study Quality Criteria Source Lietz 200711 Inclusion Criteria n= 280 (222 with complete Numerous variables examined by stepwise Patients eligible for destination therapy, but Use of HeartMate data for analysis of in-hospital logistic regression including demographics none received HeartMate II 56 centers in XVE for destination mortality) and body size, cause of heart failure, history of U.S. therapy after FDA cardiovascular diseases, other comorbidities, Variables assessed before implantation approval, November Mean Age (yr): 61 medical and device therapy for heart failure, surgery Funding 2002 – 2005 Male: 82% hemodynamics, laboratory data, year and center Source: not experience. Regression estimates used to Measurements of potential predictors not reported Consent to be in Mean LVEF: 18% calculate individual risk score. standardized or described manufacturer’s case IV inotrope: 70% registry 280/309 NYHA class IV: 100% 90-DAY IN-HOSPITAL MORTALITY, n=60 (27%) Presumably complete follow-up of in-hospital (91%) CAUSES deaths Sepsis - 33% Multiorgan failure - 20% Wide confidence intervals on predicted Right heart failure - 14% probabilities, calibration questionable, and Respiratory failure - 7% predictions not validated Technical difficulties - 5% Device failure - 5% No assessment of whether or how much use Hemorrhage - 3% of variables could improve patient selection or Stroke - 3% outcomes; thresholds of acceptable operative Several other causes - 10% risk not defined INDEPENDENT CORRELATES (OR = odds ratio) Platelet count < 148,000; OR = 7.7 Serum albumin < 3.3 g/dl; OR = 5.7 INR > 1.1; OR = 5.4 Vasodilator; OR = 5.2 Mean pulmonary artery pressure < 25 mmHg; OR = 4.1 Aspartate aminotransferase > 45 U/ml; OR = 2.6 Hematocrit < 34%; OR = 3.0 Blood urea nitrogen > 51 U/dl; OR = 2.9 No IV inotrope; OR = 2.9 39 Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review Evidence-based Synthesis Program Study/Country/ Inclusion/Exclusion Funding Sample of Patients Outcomes & Baseline Correlates Study Quality Criteria Source Leitz 200711 See above See above RISK SCORE See above C-statistic 0.89 Continued RISK SCORE CATEGORIES % PREDICTED (CI) vs OBS 0 to 8 (n=65) 2 (1 to 5) vs 6 9 to 16 (n=111) 12 (8 to 18) vs 14 17 to 19 (n=28) 44 (33 to 56) vs 61 >19 (n=18) 81 (66 to 91) vs 82 Adamson Inclusion Criteria n=55 subgrouped into < 70 (n= Patients eligible for destination therapy, 201134 Patients enrolled 25) and ≥ 70 years old (n=30) < 70 ≥70 received HeartMate II in clinical trials of group group Single center in the HeartMate II Male: not reported Age determined before implantation surgery U.S. ventricular assist NYHA class IV: 100% MEAN AGE (years) 57 76 and likely valid device Mean LVEF: 20% MEDIAN DURATION WITH DEVICE (days) Funding IV inotrope: 64% 415 482 Presumably complete follow-up in trials Source: not All carefully screened Intra-aortic balloon pump: 5% DROPOUTS 3 0 reported using criteria of Defibrillator: 74% SURVIVAL (p=0.81) No confidence intervals on differences clinical trials and CMS Cardiac resynchronization 30 days 96% 97% between small age subgroups therapy: 51% 6 months 88% 83% Mean Destination Therapy Risk 12 months 72% 75% No adjustment for preoperative differences Score: 9.3 AT 6 MONTHS NYHA CLASS I or II 100% 89% p=0.35 MEAN IMPROVE in MLHFQ SCORE 36 42 p=0.07 MEAN IMPROVE in KCCQ SCORE 32 42 p=0.88 ADVERSE EVENT RATES No significant differences Major Bleeding 28% 30% Sepsis 24% 20% Device-related infect. 20% 17% Cardiac Arrhythmia 32% 33% Stroke 8% 10% Right heart failure 4% 3% Renal failure 4% 3% INTERMACS – Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support, LVEF – left ventricular ejection fraction, IV – intravenous, NYHA – New York Heart Association, HR – hazard ratio, OR – odds ratio, INR – international normalization ratio, CI – 95% confidence interval, OBS – observed, BUN – blood urea nitrogen, MLHFQ – Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Score, KCCQ – Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 40.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ventricular Assist Devices (Vads) and Total Artificial Hearts These Services May Or May Not Be Covered by Your Healthpartners Plan
    Ventricular assist devices (VADs) and total artificial hearts These services may or may not be covered by your HealthPartners plan. Please see your plan documents for your specific coverage information. If there is a difference between this general information and your plan documents, your plan documents will be used to determine your coverage. Administrative Process Prior authorization is required for insertion of an implantable ventricular assist device (VAD). Prior authorization is required for placement of a total artificial heart (TAH). Prior authorization is not required in the event that either of the devices listed above is used under emergency circumstances for a critically ill member in an in-patient setting. Emergency use is defined as necessary to save the life or protect the immediate well-being of a given patient. However, services with specific coverage criteria may be reviewed concurrently or retrospectively to determine medical necessity. Prior authorization is not required for percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs). Coverage Insertion of an implantable ventricular assist device (VAD) or total artificial heart (TAH) is covered per the member’s plan documents when the criteria outlined below are met and the procedure is performed at a HealthPartners Transplant Center of Excellence. Please see the Related Content section for the Transplant Centers of Excellence documents. Indications that are covered Implantable ventricular assist device Adult 1. An implantable VAD is covered as a bridge to recovery in patients with a potentially reversible condition when the following criteria are met: A. The requested device has received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is being used in accordance with device-specific, FDA-approved indications.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices As Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: a Systematic Review
    Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research & Development Service Evidence-based Synthesis Program Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review May 2012 Prepared for: Investigators: Department of Veterans Affairs Principal Investigators: Veterans Health Administration Thomas S. Rector, Ph.D. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative Brent C. Taylor, Ph.D., M.P.H. Health Services Research & Development Service Washington, DC 20420 Research Associates: Nancy Greer, Ph.D. Prepared by: Indulis Rutks, B.S. Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) Center Minneapolis VA Medical Center Minneapolis, MN Timothy J. Wilt, M.D., M.P.H., Director Use of Left Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure: A Systematic Review Evidence-based Synthesis Program PREFACE Quality Enhancement Research Initiative’s (QUERI) Evidence-based Synthesis Program (ESP) was established to provide timely and accurate syntheses of targeted healthcare topics of particular importance to Veterans Affairs (VA) managers and policymakers, as they work to improve the health and healthcare of Veterans. The ESP disseminates these reports throughout VA. QUERI provides funding for four ESP Centers and each Center has an active VA affiliation. The ESP Centers generate evidence syntheses on important clinical practice topics, and these reports help: • develop clinical policies informed by evidence, • guide the implementation of effective services to improve patient outcomes and to support VA clinical practice guidelines and performance measures, and • set the direction for future research to address gaps in clinical knowledge. In 2009, the ESP Coordinating Center was created to expand the capacity of QUERI Central Office and the four ESP sites by developing and maintaining program processes.
    [Show full text]
  • 280 Total Artificial Hearts and Implantable Ventricular Assist
    Medical Policy Total Artificial Hearts and Implantable Ventricular Assist Devices Table of Contents • Policy: Commercial • Coding Information • Information Pertaining to All Policies • Policy: Medicare • Description • References • Authorization Information • Policy History Policy Number: 280 BCBSA Reference Number: 7.03.11 Related Policies • Heart/Lung Transplant, #269 • Heart Transplant, #197 • Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, #726 Policy Commercial Members: Managed Care (HMO and POS), PPO, and Indemnity Bridge to Transplantation Implantable ventricular assist devices (VADs) with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval or clearance may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY as a bridge to heart transplantation for patients who are currently listed as heart transplantation candidates and not expected to survive until a donor heart can be obtained, or are undergoing evaluation to determine candidacy for heart transplantation. Implantable (VADs) with FDA approval or clearance, including humanitarian device exemptions, may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY as a bridge to heart transplantation in children 16 years old or younger who are currently listed as heart transplantation candidates and not expected to survive until a donor heart can be obtained, or are undergoing evaluation to determine candidacy for heart transplantation. Total artificial hearts (TAHs) with FDA-approved devices may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY as a bridge to heart transplantation for patients with biventricular failure who have no other reasonable medical
    [Show full text]
  • Ventricular Assist Devices As Destination Therapy: INSIDE FALL 2013 Why and When to Make This Decision
    ADVANCES IN ADULT AND PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY, INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY Affiliated with Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and Weill Cornell Medical College Ventricular Assist Devices as Destination Therapy: INSIDE FALL 2013 Why and When to Make This Decision End-stage heart disease affects some six million Americans a year and is the principal diagnosis 1 VADs: The Early Years of patients discharged from hospitals. Despite many advances in medical therapies, it is estimated that over one million patients will progress to significant heart failure with high mortality rates. In recent years, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have transitioned in their role as a bridge- 2 The Right Time to VAD to-transplant to a destination therapy for patients with advanced heart failure. While these devices are highly effective in prolonging survival in patients refractory to medical management, Exciting Progress, they are not without their challenges. This article addresses some important questions about the Continuing Challenges: decision-making process for recommending an LVAD as a permanent therapy and the associated 4 Weighing Risk Versus risks and benefits to patients. Benefit ccording to Yoshifumi Naka, MD, APhD, Director of the Mechanical The Next Generation Circulatory Support Program and 5 Cardiac Transplantation Program at NewYork-Presbyterian, the Mechanical Circulatory Support Program at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia was initiated in 1990 to provide a bridge-to- transplantation to support patients until suitable donor hearts became available. In the two decades since, cardiologists and cardiothoracic surgeons at NewYork- Presbyterian/Columbia and NewYork- Presbyterian/Weill Cornell have reached In the most recent edition across their subspecialties, pooling their expertise to find a viable therapy for of America’s Best Hospitals end-stage heart failure when medical published by therapies have nothing left to offer and U.S.News & World Report, transplant is not an option.
    [Show full text]
  • Left Ventricular Assist Device As Destination Therapy
    The VAD Journal: The journal of mechanical assisted circulation and heart failure Review Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination Therapy Maya Guglin 1 * and Leslie W. Miller 1 Gill Heart Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 1 ORCID: 0000-0001-5746-3135 * Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Mechanical circulatory support is the most rapidly evolving strategy in heart failure management. The growing number of patients who need better results than medical therapy can offer, the limited pool of donors for cardiac transplantation, and several technological breakthroughs have all made the option of implanting a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy Citation: Guglin, M., et al. (2014). Left Ventricular Assist Device as more important. Destination Therapy. The VAD Journal, 1. doi: In this review, we outline the indications and decision making process of http://dx.doi.org/10.13023/VAD.2 014.02 considering a patient for a destination therapy LVAD, as well as outcomes, complications, and issues related to management of patients on currently Editor-in-Chief: Maya Guglin, University of Kentucky approved devices. The future direction of the field will be determined by progress in technology and by further improvement in size, durability, pump dynamics, and Received: Dec. 30, 2014 most importantly, by solving the problem of supplying energy to the pump without Published: Dec. 30, 2014 a percutaneous driveline. © 2015 The Author(s). This is an open access article published under the terms of the Creative Keywords Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International Heart failure; Ventricular assist device; Mechanical circulatory support License (https://creativecommons.org/lice nses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, End Destination of Heart Failure Is LVAD distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the The population of patients with heart failure (HF) is growing at a rate approaching original author(s) and the that of an epidemic.
    [Show full text]
  • VHA Directive 1102.08, Heart Failure Treatment Utilizing a Ventricular
    Department of Veterans Affairs VHA DIRECTIVE 1102.08 Veterans Health Administration Transmittal Sheet Washington, DC 20420 April 19, 2019 HEART FAILURE TREATMENT UTILIZING A VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE OR TOTAL ARTIFICIAL HEART: PATIENT SELECTION AND FUNDING 1. REASON FOR ISSUE: This Veterans Health Administration (VHA) directive provides the policy for the use and funding of Ventricular Assist Device (VAD) therapy for destination and bridge to transplantation and Total Artificial Heart (TAH) therapy for bridge to transplantation, including guidelines for patient selection. 2. SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES: Changes to this directive include the following: a. Added oversight responsibilities for the Under Secretary for Health and The Deputy Under Secretary for Operations and Management (see paragraph 5, Responsibilities). b. Added responsibilities for the Health Care team who performs pre-procedural evaluation, the implantation of the VAD or TAH device, and subsequent follow-up care and treatment for the Veteran (see paragraph 5, Responsibilities). c. Added Training paragraph, specifying that there is no mandatory training requirement (see paragraph 8). d. Added Records Management paragraph (see paragraph 9). 3. RELATED ISSUES: None. 4. RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: The VHA National Surgery Office (NSO) (10NC2) is responsible for the contents of this directive. Questions may be referred to the National Director of Surgery at 202-461-7130. 5. RESCISSIONS: VHA Directive 2012-033, Heart Failure Treatment Utilizing a Ventricular Assist Device or Total Artificial Heart: Patient Selection and Funding, dated November 9, 2012, is rescinded. 6. RECERTIFICATION: This VHA directive is scheduled for recertification on or before the last working day of April 2024. This directive will continue to serve as national VHA policy until it is recertified or rescinded.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventricular Assist Devices
    The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program is scheduled to begin in nine competitive bidding areas (CBAs) on January 1, 2011. Referral agents located in CBAs who prescribe DMEPOS for beneficiaries or refer beneficiaries to specific suppliers will need to be aware of which suppliers in the area are contract suppliers as well as other important referring information. Referral agents include such entities as Medicare enrolled providers, physicians, treating practitioners, discharge planners, social workers, and pharmacists who refer beneficiaries for services in a CBA. More information for referral agents can be found in the new Medicare Learning Network® (MLN) fact sheet “The DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program: Fact Sheet for Referral Agents” located at http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service- Payment/DMEPOSCompetitiveBid/index.html on the CMS website. This fact sheet is also available to order in hardcopy, free of charge. To order your copy, please visit the MLN homepage at http://www.cms.gov/mlngeninfo on the CMS website. MLN Matters® Number: MM7220 Related Change Request (CR) #: 7220 Related CR Release Date: December 8, 2010 Effective Date: November 9, 2010 Related CR Transmittal #: R129NCD Implementation Date: January 11, 2011 Ventricular Assist Devices (VADs) as Destination Therapy Note:This article was updated on September 18, 2014, to add a link to MLN Matters® article MM8803 available at http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network- MLN/MLNMattersArticles/downloads/MM8803.pdf on the CMS website. This article alerts providers that CMS is modifying the criteria for coverage of ventricular assist devices (VADs) as Bridge-to-Transplant (BTT) and is modifying the facility criteria for coverage as destination Therapy (DT).
    [Show full text]
  • Advanced Heart Failure: Mechanical Circulatory Support and Heart Transplantation
    Advanced Heart Failure: Mechanical Circulatory Support and Heart Transplantation By Douglas Jennings, Pharm.D., FCCP, FAHA, FACC, FHFSA, BCPS; and Phillip Weeks, Pharm.D., BCPS, BCCP Reviewed by Christopher Ensor, Pharm.D., FCCP, FAST, BCPS; Ohoud Almalki, Pharm.D., BCPS, ASH-CHC, CLS; and Debra J. Barnette, Pharm.D., FCCP, BCPS, BCACP, CDE LEARNING OBJECTIVES 1. Evaluate pharmacotherapy for the patient awaiting left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation (HT). 2. Design optimal therapy for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support. 3. Develop effective thromboprophylactic strategies for patients receiving percutaneous ventricular assist device support. 4. Develop effective treatment for patients with complications of durable LVAD therapy. 5. Design optimal pharmacotherapy for the patient recovering from HT. INTRODUCTION ABBREVIATIONS IN THIS CHAPTER Despite advances in pharmacotherapy and device technology (e.g., ACT Activated clotting time implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization aPTT Activated partial thromboplastin time therapy), heart failure (HF) remains a leading cause of morbidity and CF-LVAD Continuous-flow left ventricular mortality in both the United States and around the world. This mor- assist device bidity and mortality is particularly prominent with advanced HF (i.e., CMV Cytomegalovirus stage D), which carries an about 90% 1-year mortality rate without CVP Central venous pressure heart transplantation (HT) or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) ECMO Extracorporeal
    [Show full text]
  • Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) As Destination Therapy for Patients with Endstage Heartfailure
    Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy for patients with endstage heartfailure This is an excerpt from the full technical report, which is written in Norwegian. The excerpt provides the report’s main messages in English. N0. 14–2013 Health technology assessment (HTA) Title Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy for patients with endstage heartfailure Norwegian title Hjertepumper (LVAD) som varig behandling av pasienter med alvorlig hjertesvikt Institution Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten) Magne Nylenna, Director Authors Lauvrak,Vigdis, Project leader, Researcher Skår, Åse, Senior Advisor Arentz-Hansen, Helene, Researcher Hamidi, Vida, Health economist Fure, Brynjar, Research manager ISBN 978-82-8121-640-2 ISSN 1890-1298 Report No. 14 – 2013 Project number Type of report Health Technology Assessment No. of pages 73 (121 incl. attachments) Client The Norwegian Directorate of Health Subject heading Heart Failure; Heart-Assist Devices (MeSH) Citation Lauvrak V, Skår Å, Arentz-Hansen H, Hamidi V, Fure B. Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as destination therapy for patients with endstage heartfailure. Report from Kunnskapssenteret no. 14−2013. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, 2013. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services summarizes and disseminates evidence concerning the effect of treatments, methods, and interventions in health services, in addition to monitoring health service quality. Our goal is to support good decision making in order to provide patients in Norway with the best possible care. The Centre is organized under The Norwegian Directorate for Health, but is scientifically and professionally independent. The Centre has no authority to develop health policy or responsibility to implement policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Anesthesia Care for the Change of Extra-Corporeal Membrane
    Open Access Austin Journal of Anesthesia and Analgesia Case Report Anesthesia Care for the Change of Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation to Left Ventricular Assisted Device in a Patient with Multiple Organ Failure Leading To Improvement in Organ Function and Outcome: A Case Report Ma WWZ1, Suhitharan T2*, Shah SS3 and Kothandan H3 Abstract 1Sing health Anesthesiology Residency, Singapore Technological advances in mechanical circulatory support have enabled 2Department of Surgical Intensive Care, Division of more patients with end-stage heart failure to benefit from Left Ventricular Assist Anesthesiology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Devices (LVAD). Indications for LVAD implantation have evolved to include Road, Singapore patients who are deemed unsuitable for cardiac transplantation, otherwise 3Department of Anesthesiology, Singapore General known as destination therapy. This case report describes such patient with Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore multi-organ failure who underwent LVAD insertion after nine days of extra- *Corresponding author: Suhitharan T, Department corporeal membrane oxygenation, intra-aortic balloon pump and maximal of Surgical Intensive Care, Division of Anaesthesiology, inotropic support. Strategies for perioperative management, as well as intra- Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore operative monitoring and interventions are discussed. Received: June 01, 2020; Accepted: June 25, 2020; Keywords: Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Left Ventricular Published: July 02, 2020 Assist Device; Multi
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum Ontario Clinical Guidelines
    Addendum Ontario Clinical Guidelines Ventricular Assist Devices for Destination Therapy June 16, 2017 Addendum - Ontario Clinical Guidelines: VAD for Destination Therapy I. Purpose The Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee (OHTAC) review of continuous-flow left ventricular devices (LVAD) for destination therapy was published in February 2016. TGLN in partnership with CCN and Ontario’s VAD implant centres have produced an addendum to the Ontario Clinical Guidelines for Ventricular Assist Devices which address OHTAC’s recommendations and provide specific guidelines pertaining to destination therapy. June 16, 2017 2 Addendum - Ontario Clinical Guidelines: VAD for Destination Therapy II. Summary of HQO Assessment The objective of Health Quality Ontario’s Left Ventricular Assist Devices for Destination Therapy: A Health Technology Assessment was to determine the clinical effectiveness of LVADs for destination therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation and estimate the cost-effectiveness and potential budget impact for the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care over the next 5 years. The full report can be found at www.hqontario.ca/evidence, a summary of the 2016 HQO Assessment is provided below. Clinical Evidence Review OHTAC examined the quality of evidence regarding key outcomes pertaining to destination therapy. The review was primarily based on four studies, including three systematic reviews and one observational study. It reached the following conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that treatment with continuous-flow LVADs improves survival compared with drugs. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that treatment with continuous-flow LVADs had higher adverse event rates than drugs. Low-quality evidence suggests that treatment with continuous-flow LVADs improves quality of life compared with drugs.
    [Show full text]
  • Perioperative Considerations in the Patient with a Left Ventricular Assist Device Alfred C
    Ⅵ CLINICAL CONCEPTS AND COMMENTARY Richard B. Weiskopf, M.D., Editor Anesthesiology 2003; 98:565–70 © 2003 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Perioperative Considerations in the Patient with a Left Ventricular Assist Device Alfred C. Nicolosi, M.D.,* Paul S. Pagel, M.D., Ph.D.† MECHANICAL support of the cardiovascular system is an Device Features Downloaded from http://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-pdf/98/2/565/336750/0000542-200302000-00038.pdf by guest on 27 September 2021 important therapeutic modality for a growing number of patients with congestive heart failure. Certain patients The three devices2-5 currently approved by the US with refractory end-stage failure who will likely succumb Food and Drug Administration for use as a “bridge to to their disease before a potential heart transplant may transplant” are the HeartMate® LVAD (Thoratec Corpo- be effectively “bridged to transplant” by a left ventricular ration, Pleasanton, CA), the Novacor® LVAD (World assist device (LVAD). Three such devices are currently Heart Corporation, Ottawa, Canada), and the Thoratec® approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for assist device (Thoratec Corporation) (fig. 1). The thera- this indication. Several ongoing multicenter clinical trials peutic goal of all three devices is to assume the pump are also evaluating LVAD therapy as an alternative to function of the failing left ventricle. To accomplish this transplantation (“destination therapy”). Preliminary data objective, each device is designed to drain the left ven- from the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assis- tricular blood volume into a mechanical pump, which tance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure Trial ejects the blood into the circulation via a conduit that indicate that an implantable LVAD prolongs survival and connects to the aorta.
    [Show full text]