European journal of heart failure · 2024
Association between caseload volume and outcomes in left ventricular assist device implantations - a EUROMACS analysis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mihalj Maks, Reineke David, Just Isabell A, Mulzer Johanna, Cholevas Nikolaos, Hoermandinger Christoph, Veen Kevin, Luedi Markus M, Heinisch Paul Philipp, Potapov Evgenij, Gummert Jan F, Mohacsi Paul, Hagl Christian, Faerber Gloria, Zimpfer Daniel, de By Theo M M H, Meyns Bart, Gustafsson Finn, Hunziker Lukas, Siepe Matthias, Schober Patrick, Schoenrath Felix
Аннотация
AIMS: This EUROMACS study was conducted with the primary aim of investigating the association between a centre's annual caseload and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 4802 patients identified between 2011 and 2020 from 35 participating centres were dichotomized based on the annual caseload of the treating centre at the time of device implant (≤30 vs. >30 LVAD implantations/year). The primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival analysis, device-related adverse events and readmissions. Cumulative follow-up was 10 003 patient-years, with a median follow-up of 1.54 years (interquartile range 0.52-3.15). Patients from higher volume centres more frequently presented in INTERMACS levels 1 and 2, suffered from right heart dysfunction and needed inotropic support. No difference was observed in adjusted 1-year survival. Adjusted overall survival probability was lower in higher volume centres (p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis of HeartMate 3 devices only, higher volume centres were associated with decreased odds of 1-year survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.97, p = 0.041). Similar findings were observed in the cumulative (i.e. learning curve) caseload analyses.
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing LVAD implantation, centre volume was not associated with 1-year survival, but was related to device-related adverse events. Patient profiles differed with respect to centre size. These findings underscore the necessity for ongoing quality improvement initiatives in all centres, regardless of their annual caseload. Efforts are needed to standardize patient selection and preconditioning to further improve patient outcome.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 4802 patients identified between 2011 and 2020 from 35 participating centres were dichotomized based on the annual caseload of the treating centre at the time of device implant (≤30 vs. >30 LVAD implantations/year). The primary endpoint was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival analysis, device-related adverse events and readmissions. Cumulative follow-up was 10 003 patient-years, with a median follow-up of 1.54 years (interquartile range 0.52-3.15). Patients from higher volume centres more frequently presented in INTERMACS levels 1 and 2, suffered from right heart dysfunction and needed inotropic support. No difference was observed in adjusted 1-year survival. Adjusted overall survival probability was lower in higher volume centres (p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis of HeartMate 3 devices only, higher volume centres were associated with decreased odds of 1-year survival (adjusted odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.97, p = 0.041). Similar findings were observed in the cumulative (i.e. learning curve) caseload analyses.
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing LVAD implantation, centre volume was not associated with 1-year survival, but was related to device-related adverse events. Patient profiles differed with respect to centre size. These findings underscore the necessity for ongoing quality improvement initiatives in all centres, regardless of their annual caseload. Efforts are needed to standardize patient selection and preconditioning to further improve patient outcome.