LVAD as a bridge to decision complicated with pump thrombosis and infection.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) emerged as an effective therapy for the treatment of symptomatic advanced heart failure in spite of maximum tolerated optimal medical treatment. LVADs were initially conceived as a bridge to transplantation, although with the continuing donor shortage, they also serve as a definitive therapy for some patients. Careful evaluation by a multidisciplinary team and proper patient selection are key factors for good outcomes. These patients are very high-risk surgical candidates, and their survival at 1 year after implantation is estimated to be around 81%. We report a unique case of a patient who underwent LVAD implantation as a bridge to candidacy and suffered several complications related to the device. We also present our experience dealing with these complications in a field of limited evidence. This gentleman developed pump thrombosis second- ary to heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, requiring an LVAD exchange during index admission. A year after being discharged from the first episode, he developed mediastinitis, needing removal of the pump, intravenous antibiotics, and veno-arterial extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for hemodynamic support. A new LVAD insertion was required, and the gentleman could be eventually discharged after a prolonged admission.

Critical incident reporting in anaesthesia: a prospective internal audit.

SUMMARY: Critical incident monitoring is useful in detecting new problems, identifying 'near misses' and analyzing factors or events leading to mishaps, which can be instructive for trainees. This study was aimed at investigating potential risk factors and analyze events leading to peri-operative critical incidents in order to develop a critical incident reporting system. We conducted a one year prospective analysis of voluntarily reported 24- hour-perioperative critical incidents, occurring in patients subjected to anaesthesia. During a one year period from December 2006 to December 2007, 14,134 anaesthetics were administered and 112(0.79%) critical incidents were reported with complete recovery in 71.42%(n=80) and mortality in 28.57% (n=32) cases. Incidents occurred maximally in 0-10 years age (23.21%), ASA 1(61.61%), in general surgery patients (43.75%), undergoing emergency surgery (52.46%) and during day time (75.89%). Incidence was more in the operating theatre (77.68%), during maintenance (32.04%) and post-operative phase (25.89%) and in patients who received general anaesthesia (75.89%). Critical incidents occurred clue to factors related to anaesthesia (42.85%), patient (37.50%) and surgery (16.96%). Among anaesthesia related critical incidents (42.85% n=48/112), respiratory events were maximum (66.66%) mainly at induction (37.5%) and emergence (43.75%), and factors responsible were human error (85.41%), pharmacological factors (10.41%) and equipment error (4.17%). Incidence of mortality was 22.6 per 10, 000 anaesthetics (32/14,314), mostly attributable to risk factors in patient (59.38%) as compared to anaesthesia (25%) and surgery (9.38%). There were 8 anaesthesia related deaths (5.6 per 10, 000 anaesthetics) where human error (75%) attributed to lack of judgment (67.50%) was an important causative factor. We conclude that critical incident reporting system may be a valuable part of quality assurance to develop policies to prevent recurrence and enhance patient safety measures.