Perioperative management of patients with left ventricular assist devices undergoing noncardiac surgery.

Aim: The aim of this study was to describe our institutional experience, primarily with general anesthesiologists consulting with cardiac anesthesiologists, caring for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective review of the population of patients with LVADs at a single institution undergoing noncardiac procedures between 2009 and 2014. Demographic, perioperative, and procedural data collected included the type of procedure performed, anesthetic technique, vasopressor requirements, invasive monitors used, anesthesia provider type, blood product management, need for postoperative intubation, postoperative disposition and length of stay, and perioperative complications including mortality. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics for categorical variables are presented as frequency distributions and percentages. Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation and range when applicable. Results: During the study, 31 patients with LVADs underwent a total of 74 procedures. Each patient underwent an average of 2.4 procedures. Of the total number of procedures, 48 (65%) were upper or lower endoscopies. Considering all procedures, 81% were performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Perioperative care was provided by faculty outside of the division of cardiac anesthesia in 62% of procedures. Invasive blood pressure monitoring was used in 27 (36%) procedures, and a central line, peripherally inserted central catheter or midline was in place preoperatively and used intraoperatively for 38 (51%) procedures. Vasopressors were not required in the majority (65; 88%) of procedures. There was one inhospital mortality secondary to multiorgan failure; 97% of patients survived to discharge after their procedure. Conclusion: At our institution, LVAD patients undergoing noncardiac procedures most frequently require endoscopy. These procedures can frequently be done safely under MAC, with or without consultation by a cardiac anesthesiologist.

Intravenous thrombolytic therapy for patients with ventricular assist device thrombosis: An attempt to avoid reoperation.

A growing number of patients are undergoing prolonged management of advanced heart failure with the use of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Subsequently, an increasing number of patients are presenting with complications associated with these devices. Based on an analysis of three major LVAD institutions, the number of patients developing LVAD pump thrombosis may be much higher than originally projected.[1,2] The management of this highly feared complication continues to be challenging, as the population of LVAD patients is very heterogeneous and heavily burdened with comorbidities. The standard protocol of increasing anticoagulation may fail to achieve successful resolution of thrombus. Difficulty and poor prognosis may make reoperation less than desirable. Here, we present a case of successful thrombolysis following intravenous administration of tissue plasminogen activator in the Intensive Care Unit setting.

Magnets and implantable cardioverter defibrillators: What's the problem.

A growing number of surgical patients present to the operating room with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD). Peri-operative care of these patients dictates that ICD function be suspended for many surgical procedures to avoid inappropriate, and possibly harmful, ICD therapy triggered by electromagnetic interference (EMI). An alternative to reprogramming the ICD is the use of a magnet to temporarily suspend its function. However, this approach is not without complications. We report a case where magnet use failed to inhibit ICD sensing of EMI, and a shock was delivered to the patient. Measures to decrease EMI, controversies regarding magnet use, and expert recommendations are discussed.