Send to

Choose Destination
ASAIO J. 2015 Jul-Aug;61(4):410-6. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000218.

Readmissions After Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Differences Observed Between Two Contemporary Device Types.

Author information

From the *Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (Haglund, Keebler), †Department of Cardiac Surgery (Maltais, Davis, Tricarico), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.


Readmissions after continuous flow left ventricular assist devices implantation are common. We compared the frequency and etiology of readmissions between two continuous flow left ventricular assist devices 6 months after implant. We retrospectively assessed readmissions in 81 patients who received a bridge to transplant HeartMate-II (HM-II) n = 35, 43% or HeartWare (HW) n = 46, 57%, from 2009 to 2014. Readmissions were divided into cardiac, infection, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, pump thrombosis, and miscellaneous profiles. Age, gender, creatinine, INTERMACS profiles were comparable between groups (p > 0.05). Sixty-one patients accounted for 141 readmissions. At 6 months, the overall readmission rate was higher among HM-II versus HW recipients (2.3 ± 1.7 vs. 1.4 ± 1.3; p = 0.024). Multiple readmissions (≥2) occurred more frequently in HM-II recipients (HM-II 23, 66% vs. HW 20, 44%; p = 0.047) which accounted for 87% of overall readmission frequency. Cardiac profile was the most common reason for readmission (HM-II = 15, HW = 17; p = 0.95). Readmission for arrhythmia (HM-II = 10, HW = 3; p = 0.021) and overall infection rate (0.49 ± 0.70 vs. 0.17 ± 0.68; p = 0.001) were more common among HM-II recipients; however, other readmission profiles were comparable between devices (p > 0.05). Readmission frequency, multiple readmissions, and clinical profile characteristics were different between HM-II and HW recipients.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center