Diego H Delgado1, Heather J Ross, Vivek Rao. 1. Division of Cardiology and Transplantation, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Canada. diego.delgado@uhn.on.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an important adjunct to the management of end-stage heart failure patients. Uncertainty remains regarding whether to remove an LVAD in a clinically stable, asymptomatic patient who displays signs of ventricular recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, from a patient's perspective, the quality-adjusted life expectancy of an LVAD explantation. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was used to assess the benefits of two strategies: remove an LVAD or continue the LVAD support. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life months. Utility and probability scores were derived from the literature and expert opinion. The base case focused on a 35-year-old man with dilated cardiomyopathy, an implantable LVAD and signs of ventricular recovery, with New York Heart Association class I heart failure symptoms. RESULTS: In the base case, continuing LVAD support was strongly preferred and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by nine quality-adjusted life months. In sensitivity analyses for the utility post-transplant, removal of the device would have been preferred if the utility was less than 0.7. The model was also sensitive to the probability of late complications post-LVAD implantation. As the probability of complications increased (greater than 28%), the preferred strategy was to remove the LVAD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LVAD support in asymptomatic patients with signs of ventricular recovery appears to be the preferred strategy for conveying greater quality-adjusted life months compared with LVAD explantation. As the probability of complications after LVAD implantation increases, the preferred strategy is to remove the LVAD.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an important adjunct to the management of end-stage heart failurepatients. Uncertainty remains regarding whether to remove an LVAD in a clinically stable, asymptomatic patient who displays signs of ventricular recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate, from a patient's perspective, the quality-adjusted life expectancy of an LVAD explantation. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was used to assess the benefits of two strategies: remove an LVAD or continue the LVAD support. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life months. Utility and probability scores were derived from the literature and expert opinion. The base case focused on a 35-year-old man with dilated cardiomyopathy, an implantable LVAD and signs of ventricular recovery, with New York Heart Association class I heart failure symptoms. RESULTS: In the base case, continuing LVAD support was strongly preferred and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by nine quality-adjusted life months. In sensitivity analyses for the utility post-transplant, removal of the device would have been preferred if the utility was less than 0.7. The model was also sensitive to the probability of late complications post-LVAD implantation. As the probability of complications increased (greater than 28%), the preferred strategy was to remove the LVAD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LVAD support in asymptomatic patients with signs of ventricular recovery appears to be the preferred strategy for conveying greater quality-adjusted life months compared with LVAD explantation. As the probability of complications after LVAD implantation increases, the preferred strategy is to remove the LVAD.
Authors: P Liu; M Arnold; I Belenkie; J Howlett; V Huckell; A Ignazewski; M H LeBlanc; R McKelvie; J Niznick; J D Parker; V Rao; H Ross; D Roy; S Smith; B Sussex; K Teo; R Tsuyuki; M White; D Beanlands; V Bernstein; R Davies; D Issac; D Johnstone; H Lee; G Moe; G Newton; P Pflugfelder; S Roth; J Rouleau; S Yusuf Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Diego H Delgado; Vivek Rao; Santiago G Miriuka; Abdurrahman Al-Hesayen; Jane McIver; Christopher M Feindel; Robert J Cusimano; Heather J Ross Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Ronald M Lazar; Peter A Shapiro; Brian E Jaski; Michael K Parides; Robert C Bourge; John T Watson; Laura Damme; Walter Dembitsky; Jeffrey D Hosenpud; Lopa Gupta; Anita Tierney; Tonya Kraus; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-05-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher J Cadham; Marie Knoll; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; K Michael Cummings; Clifford E Douglas; Alex Liber; David Mendez; Rafael Meza; Ritesh Mistry; Aylin Sertkaya; Nargiz Travis; David T Levy Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 2.749