Current Heart Failure Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 212–218

Hospital to Home with Mechanical Circulatory Support

Decompensated Heart Failure (MM Givertz, Section Editor)


Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is becoming the mainstay of therapy for patients with advanced heart failure, both for patients needing support as a bridge to transplantation and for those who require the device as a destination therapy. As more and more devices are implanted, there is a need to address effective discharge planning, arrange appropriate follow-up, anticipate and address complications, and develop strategies for long-term care. In this article, we will discuss issues surrounding discharge and challenges of managing patients with MCS in the outpatient setting.


Mechanical circulatory support Ventricular assist device Discharge planning Ethics Outpatient follow-up Complications Shared decision making Frailty 


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(1):e6–e245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Miller MA, et al. Fifth INTERMACS annual report: Risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32(2):141–56. This is a very good paper to review the long term outcomes in patients with MCS enrolled in the INTERMACS registry.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Givertz MM. Ventricular Assist Devices. Circulation. 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slaughter MS, Bostic R, Tong K, Russo M, Rogers JG. Temporal changes in hospital costs for left ventricular assist device implantation. J Card Surg. 2011;26(5):535–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Swetz KM, Freeman MR, AbouEzzeddine OF, Carter KA, Boilson BA, Ottenberg AL, et al. Palliative medicine consultation for preparedness planning in patients receiving left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy. Mayo Clin Proc. 2011;86(6):493–500. This is a very good paper that emphasizes the need of shared decision making in DT patients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smedira NG, Hoercher KJ, Lima B, Mountis MM, Starling RC, Thuita L, et al. Unplanned Hospital Readmissions After HeartMate II Implantation. JACC: Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;1(1):31–9.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McNallan SM, Singh M, Chamberlain AM, Kane RL, Dunlay SM, Redfield MM, et al. Frailty and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients With Heart Failure in the Community. JACC: Heart Failure. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013;1(2):135–41.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ravaglia G, Forti P, Lucicesare A, Pisacane N, Rietti E, Patterson C. Development of an easy prognostic score for frailty outcomes in the aged. Age Ageing. 2008;37(2):161–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Afilalo J, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ, Alexander KP, Noiseux N, Perrault LP, et al. Addition of frailty and disability to cardiac surgery risk scores identifies elderly patients at high risk of mortality or major morbidity. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5(2):222–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kormos RL, Teuteberg JJ, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Miller LW, et al. Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(5):9–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, Russell SD, Conte JV, Feldman D, et al. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(23):2241–51. This is the seminal trial based on which the HeartMate 2 device was approved for DT.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon RJ, Weinberg AD, Pagani FD, Slaughter MS, Pappas PS, Naka Y, et al. Prospective, multicenter study of ventricular assist device infections. Circulation. 2013;127(6):691–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goldstein DJ, Naftel D, Holman W, Bellumkonda MH, Pamboukian SV, Pagani FD, et al. Continuous-flow devices and percutaneous site infections: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2012;31(11):1151–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park SJS, Milano CAC, Tatooles AJA, Rogers JGJ, Adamson RMR, Steidley DED, et al. Outcomes in advanced heart failure patients with left ventricular assist devices for destination therapy. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5(2):241–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaan A, Young Q-R, Cockell S, Mackay M. Emotional experiences of caregivers of patients with a ventricular assist device. Prog Transplant. 2010;20(2):142–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hasin T, Marmor Y, Kremers W, Topilsky Y, Severson CJ, Schirger JA, et al. Readmissions after implantation of axial flow left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(2):153–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forest SJ, Bello R, Friedmann P, Casazza D, Nucci C, Shin JJ, et al. Readmissions after ventricular assist device: etiologies, patterns, and days out of hospital. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95(4):1276–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of MedicineYale School of MedicineNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Yale Center for Advanced Heart failure and TransplantationNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations