» Articles » PMID: 29255896

Outcomes Associated With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Among Recipients With and Without End-stage Renal Disease

Overview
Journal JAMA Intern Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2017 Dec 20
PMID 29255896
Citations 27
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Importance: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are widely used both as a bridge to heart transplant and as destination therapy in advanced heart failure. Although heart failure is common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), little is known about outcomes after LVAD implantation in this population.

Objective: To determine the utilization of and outcomes associated with LVADs in nationally representative cohorts of patients with and without ESRD.

Design, Setting And Participants: We described LVAD utilization and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries after ESRD onset (defined as having received maintenance dialysis or a kidney transplant) from 2003 to 2013 based on Medicare claims linked to data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS), a national registry for ESRD. We compared Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD to a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries without ESRD.

Exposures: ESRD (vs no ESRD) among patients who underwent LVAD placement.

Main Outcomes And Measures: The primary outcome was survival after LVAD placement.

Results: Among the patients with ESRD, the mean age was 58.4 (12.1) years and 62.0% (96) were male. Among those without ESRD, the mean age was 62.2 (12.6) years and 75.1% (196) were male. From 2003 to 2013, 155 Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD (median and interquartile range [IQR] days from ESRD onset to LVAD placement were 1655 days [453-3050 days]) and 261 beneficiaries without ESRD in the Medicare 5% sample received an LVAD. During a median follow-up of 762 days (IQR, 92-3850 days), 127 patients (81.9%) with and 95 (36.4%) without ESRD died. more than half of patients with ESRD (80 [51.6%]) compared with 11 (4%) of those without ESRD died during the index hospitalization. The median time to death was 16 days (IQR 2-447 days) for patients with ESRD compared with 2125 days (IQR, 565-3850 days) for those without ESRD. With adjustment for demographics, comorbidity and time period, patients with ESRD had a markedly increased adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio, 36.3; 95% CI, 15.6-84.5), especially in the first 60 days after LVAD placement.

Conclusions And Relevance: Patients with ESRD at the time of LVAD placement had an extremely poor prognosis, with most surviving for less than 3 weeks. This information may be crucial in supporting shared decision-making around treatments for advanced heart failure for patients with ESRD.

Citing Articles

Management of Chronic Heart Failure in Dialysis Patients: A Challenging but Rewarding Path.

Guo L, Ji Y, Sun T, Liu Y, Jiang C, Wang G Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024; 25(6):232.

PMID: 39076321 PMC: 11270084. DOI: 10.31083/j.rcm2506232.


Management of patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease.

Wu L, Rodriguez M, El Hachem K, Tang W, Krittanawong C Heart Fail Rev. 2024; 29(5):989-1023.

PMID: 39073666 DOI: 10.1007/s10741-024-10415-9.


Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Outcomes in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Crugnola W, Cinquina A, Mattimore D, Bitzas S, Schwartz J, Zaidi S Biomedicines. 2024; 12(7).

PMID: 39062177 PMC: 11275105. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12071604.


Toward Equitable Kidney Function Estimation in Critical Care Practice: Guidance From the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Renal Clinical Practice Task Force.

Miano T, Barreto E, McNett M, Martin N, Sakhuja A, Andrews A Crit Care Med. 2024; 52(6):951-962.

PMID: 38407240 PMC: 11098700. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006237.


Cardiac Device Therapy in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: An Update.

Caba B, Vasiliu L, Covic M, Sascau R, Statescu C, Covic A J Clin Med. 2024; 13(2).

PMID: 38256650 PMC: 10816721. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13020516.


References
1.
Iacovetto M, Matlock D, McIlvennan C, Thompson J, Bradley W, LaRue S . Educational resources for patients considering a left ventricular assist device: a cross-sectional review of internet, print, and multimedia materials. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2014; 7(6):905-11. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.114.000892. View

2.
Swetz K, Cook K, Ottenberg A, Chang N, Mueller P . Clinicians' attitudes regarding withdrawal of left ventricular assist devices in patients approaching the end of life. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013; 15(11):1262-6. PMC: 4023318. DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hft094. View

3.
Ciarka A, Edwards L, Nilsson J, Stehlik J, Lund L . Trends in the use of mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to heart transplantation across different age groups. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 231:225-227. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.10.049. View

4.
Kitko L, Hupcey J, Birriel B, Alonso W . Patients' decision making process and expectations of a left ventricular assist device pre and post implantation. Heart Lung. 2016; 45(2):95-9. PMC: 4779403. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2015.12.003. View

5.
Ben Gal T, Jaarsma T . Self-care and communication issues at the end of life of recipients of a left-ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2013; 7(1):29-35. DOI: 10.1097/SPC.0b013e32835d2d50. View