Marykay A Pavol1, Joshua Z Willey2, Ying Wei3, Melana Yuzefpolskaya4, Randolph S Marshall2, Philip J Marascalco5, Jason Harwood5, Ronald M Lazar2. 1. Stroke Division, Department of Neurology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, 10032, USA. mp2740@cumc.columbia.edu. 2. Stroke Division, Department of Neurology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, 10032, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Cardiology Division, Department of Medicine,, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. 5. Terumo Heart, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of cognition after LVAD surgery have produced mixed results. To explore whether cognition would improve, decline, or remain stable after LVAD surgery, we examined cognition before and 1- and 3-months after LVAD surgery. Patients with post-surgical stroke were excluded. METHODS: 28 subjects (mean age = 54.31 ± 12 years) comprised an observational case series from the DuraHeart LVAS device® trial. Cognitive testing was performed at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month post-surgery, and included tests of attention, memory, language, visualmotor speed (TMT) and visualconstruction. RESULTS: No difference in cognition was found between baseline and 1-month exams (means z score improvement = 0.06, p = 0.43) but cognition improved significantly between baseline and 3-month exams (mean z score improvement = 0.34, p < 0.00001). Examination of individual test scores found, after correction for multiple comparisons, only the TMT variable was significantly different at the 3-month exam. CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly improved cognition 3 months after LVAD surgery in a subset of patients without post-surgical stroke. The reasons for the lack of cognitive improvement at the 1-month post-surgical assessment may include ongoing medical and physiological disruptions in the immediate post-operative period. Further research into the sources of delayed improvement is warranted. Cognitive assessments performed immediately after surgery should be interpreted with caution because the results may not reflect longer term cognitive outcomes. LVAD patients may require additional support to successfully manage their health in the weeks immediately following surgery but assistance needs may decrease over time.
BACKGROUND: Studies of cognition after LVAD surgery have produced mixed results. To explore whether cognition would improve, decline, or remain stable after LVAD surgery, we examined cognition before and 1- and 3-months after LVAD surgery. Patients with post-surgical stroke were excluded. METHODS: 28 subjects (mean age = 54.31 ± 12 years) comprised an observational case series from the DuraHeart LVAS device® trial. Cognitive testing was performed at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month post-surgery, and included tests of attention, memory, language, visualmotor speed (TMT) and visualconstruction. RESULTS: No difference in cognition was found between baseline and 1-month exams (means z score improvement = 0.06, p = 0.43) but cognition improved significantly between baseline and 3-month exams (mean z score improvement = 0.34, p < 0.00001). Examination of individual test scores found, after correction for multiple comparisons, only the TMT variable was significantly different at the 3-month exam. CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly improved cognition 3 months after LVAD surgery in a subset of patients without post-surgical stroke. The reasons for the lack of cognitive improvement at the 1-month post-surgical assessment may include ongoing medical and physiological disruptions in the immediate post-operative period. Further research into the sources of delayed improvement is warranted. Cognitive assessments performed immediately after surgery should be interpreted with caution because the results may not reflect longer term cognitive outcomes. LVAD patients may require additional support to successfully manage their health in the weeks immediately following surgery but assistance needs may decrease over time.
Authors: Nader Moazami; Robert J Steffen; Yoshifumi Naka; Ulrich Jorde; Stephen Bailey; Srinivas Murali; Margarita T Camacho; Mark Zucker; Philip J Marascalco; Vivek Rao; David Feldman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Jennifer A Frontera; Randall Starling; Sung-Min Cho; Amy S Nowacki; Ken Uchino; M Shazam Hussain; Maria Mountis; Nader Moazami Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: William K Cornwell; Takashi Tarumi; Vincent L Aengevaeren; Colby Ayers; Punag Divanji; Qi Fu; Dean Palmer; Mark H Drazner; Dan M Meyer; Brian T Bethea; Jeffrey L Hastings; Naoki Fujimoto; Shigeki Shibata; Rong Zhang; David W Markham; Benjamin D Levine Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Judith Bellapart; Gregory S Chan; Yu-Chieh Tzeng; Philip Ainslie; Adrian G Barnett; Kimble R Dunster; Rob Boots; John F Fraser Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Katherine Lietz; Kevin Brown; Syed S Ali; Monica Colvin-Adams; Andrew J Boyle; David Anderson; Alan D Weinberg; Leslie W Miller; Soon Park; Ranjit John; Ronald M Lazar Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Meredith Hay; Robin Polt; Michael L Heien; Todd W Vanderah; Tally M Largent-Milnes; Kathleen Rodgers; Torsten Falk; Mitchell J Bartlett; Kristian P Doyle; John P Konhilas Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.030