Michael Koeckert1, Patrick Vining1, Alex Reyentovich2, Stuart D Katz2, Abe DeAnda3, Stefanie Philipson4, Leora B Balsam5. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, NYU-Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, NYU-Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA. 4. Department of Social Work, NYU-Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, NYU-Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: leora.balsam@nyumc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between caregiver status and outcomes after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. BACKGROUND: The absence of a caregiver is a relative contraindication to durable LVAD support. METHODS:Forty-three patients that underwent primary LVAD implantation were divided into three groups: those with caregivers that retained their roles for the duration of LVAD support (CG group), those with caregivers that resigned their roles (CG-QUIT group), and those implanted without an assigned caregiver (No-CG group). Group-specific characteristics and post-implant outcomes were compared. RESULTS: In the CG-QUIT group, caregivers did not live in the same home (0.0% vs. 80.6% of CG group) and none were spouses (0.0% vs. 64.5% for CG group). Thirty-day readmission rate was highest in the CG-QUIT group (83.3% vs. 25.8% in CG group and 16.7% in No-CG group). CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver relationships were more likely to be maintained for the duration of LVAD support when the caregiver was a spouse and resided in the same home as the patient. Carefully selected patients implanted without a designated caregiver had comparable outcomes to those who retained their original caregiver.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between caregiver status and outcomes after durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. BACKGROUND: The absence of a caregiver is a relative contraindication to durable LVAD support. METHODS: Forty-three patients that underwent primary LVAD implantation were divided into three groups: those with caregivers that retained their roles for the duration of LVAD support (CG group), those with caregivers that resigned their roles (CG-QUIT group), and those implanted without an assigned caregiver (No-CG group). Group-specific characteristics and post-implant outcomes were compared. RESULTS: In the CG-QUIT group, caregivers did not live in the same home (0.0% vs. 80.6% of CG group) and none were spouses (0.0% vs. 64.5% for CG group). Thirty-day readmission rate was highest in the CG-QUIT group (83.3% vs. 25.8% in CG group and 16.7% in No-CG group). CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver relationships were more likely to be maintained for the duration of LVAD support when the caregiver was a spouse and resided in the same home as the patient. Carefully selected patients implanted without a designated caregiver had comparable outcomes to those who retained their original caregiver.
Authors: Rebecca S Steinberg; Aditi Nayak; Michael A Burke; Morgan Aldridge; S Raja Laskar; Kunal Bhatt; Lakshmi Sridharan; Mahmoud Abdou; Tamer Attia; Andrew Smith; Mani Daneshmand; J David Vega; Divya Gupta; Alanna A Morris Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Christopher E Knoepke; Bonnie Siry-Bove; Caitlin Mayton; Abigail Latimer; Jan Hart; Larry A Allen; Stacie L Daugherty; Colleen K McIlvennan; Daniel D Matlock; Prateeti Khazanie Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 10.447
Authors: Kenneth M Faulkner; Corrine Y Jurgens; Quin E Denfeld; Christopher V Chien; Jessica Harman Thompson; Jill M Gelow; Kathleen L Grady; Christopher S Lee Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.593
Authors: Kelsey Flint; Erin L Chaussee; Kamal Henderson; Khadijah Breathett; Prateeti Khazanie; Jocelyn S Thompson; Colleen K Mcilvennan; Shane J Larue; Daniel D Matlock; Larry A Allen Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 5.712