RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of directly discharging patients home from the medical intensive care unit (MICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center retrospective observational study of consecutive MICU direct discharges to home from an urban university hospital between June, 1, 2017, and June 30, 2019. RESULTS: Of 1061 MICU discharges, 331 (31.2%) patients were eligible for analysis. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on duration of wait-time (< or ≥24 hours) between ward transfer order and ultimate hospital discharge. Most patients (68.2%) were discharged in <24 hours. Patients who waited for a floor bed for ≥24 hours prior to discharge had longer hospital length-of-stay (LOS, median 3.83 versus 2.00 days) and ICU LOS (median 3.51 versus 1.74 days). Overall, 44 (13.3%) direct MICU discharges were readmitted to the hospital within 30-days, but there was no difference in this outcome or in 30-day mortality when comparing the 2 wait-time groups. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of directly discharging MICU patients home does not negatively influence patient outcomes. Patients who overstay in the ICU after being deemed transfer-ready are unlikely to be benefiting from critical care, but impact hospital throughput and resource utilization. Prospective investigation into this practice may provide further confirmation of its feasibility and safety.
Assuntos
Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Alta do Paciente , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58-255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS.
RESUMO
In patients with biventricular heart failure or refractory right heart failure following HeartWare HVAD placement, off-label placement of a right-sided HeartWare HVAD has been described both in the right ventricular (RV) and right atrial (RA) positions. We sought to evaluate and compare the outcomes of right-sided HeartWare HVAD using the RA versus RV approach. An electronic search was performed in the English literature to identify all reports of left- and right-heart support with HeartWare HVAD. Of the 1,288 articles identified, 13 articles with 56 cases met inclusion criteria. Patient-level data were extracted and analyzed. The median patient age was 52 years (IQR 33.0-59.0) and 40/50 (80.0%) were male. Overall, 21/56 patients (37.5%) had RA HVAD, while 35/56 (62.5%) had RV HVAD. Most underwent concomitant HVAD placement [RA: 17/21 (81.0%) vs. RV: 31/35 (88.6%), P = .69]. In those who did not, the median time between left and right HVAD was 10 days (IQR 7-14) for RA HVAD and 12 days (IQR 8-30) for RV HVAD (P = .77). The median time of support was 351 days (IQR 136-626) for RA HVAD compared to 135 days (IQR 61-244) for RV HVAD (P = .02). Pump thrombosis occurred at a similar rate [RA: 3/10 (30.0%) vs. RV: 6/20 (30.0%), P = 1], as did GI bleeding [RA: 10/35 (28.6%) vs. RV: 5/21 (23.8%), P = .94] during the follow-up time period. Kaplan-Meier analysis when censored for transplant showed higher survival with RA HVAD compared to RV HVAD (P = .036), with an estimated survival at 1 year of 91.7% (95% CI 77.3-100.0) in RA HVAD versus 66.2% (95% CI 48.9-89.6) for RV HVAD. RA HVAD appears to be a viable option for durable right-sided support with outcomes at least comparable to RV HVAD.
