Efficacy and Complication Profiles of Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Adult Heart Failure Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Journal
Current Problems in Cardiology
ISSN
0146-2806
Date Issued
2024-01
Author(s)
Jordan Llerena-Velastegui
Gerson Santafe-Abril
Cecibel Villacis-Lopez
Claudia Hurtado-Alzate
Marcela Placencia-Silva
Mauricio Santander-Aldean
Martin Trujillo-Delgado
Ximena Freire-Oña
Carolina Santander-Fuentes
Javier Velasquez-Campos
Abstract
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have marked a milestone in the evolution of treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. Their popularity and use are steadily rising. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LVADs in improving the survival rate of patients with end-stage heart failure and to identify the complications or adverse events associated with LVAD use.
Articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only studies that met the predefined PICOS eligibility criteria were analyzed. LVADs significantly improved the 6, 12, 18, and 24-month survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure compared to no LVAD or other therapies: OR 1.87 (95%CI [1.27-2.76]), OR 2.29 (95%CI [1.61-3.26]), OR 2.07 (95%CI [0.61-6.61]), and OR 1.73 (95%CI [0.88-3.41]) for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the LVAD group than in the non-LVAD treatments: bleeding OR 12.53 (95%CI [2.60-60.41]), infections OR 4.15 (95%CI [1.19-14.45]), stroke OR 2.58 (95%CI [1.38-4.82]), and arrhythmia OR 2.81 (95%CI [1.64-4.80]).
Overall, complications were higher in the LVAD group compared to those without LVAD treatment. Hospital readmissions due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the LVAD group, OR 2.98 (95%CI [1.38-6.43]). Despite the elevated risk of adverse events associated with LVADs, these devices have demonstrated a notable enhancement in the survival outcomes for patients with end-stage heart failure.
Articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only studies that met the predefined PICOS eligibility criteria were analyzed. LVADs significantly improved the 6, 12, 18, and 24-month survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure compared to no LVAD or other therapies: OR 1.87 (95%CI [1.27-2.76]), OR 2.29 (95%CI [1.61-3.26]), OR 2.07 (95%CI [0.61-6.61]), and OR 1.73 (95%CI [0.88-3.41]) for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the LVAD group than in the non-LVAD treatments: bleeding OR 12.53 (95%CI [2.60-60.41]), infections OR 4.15 (95%CI [1.19-14.45]), stroke OR 2.58 (95%CI [1.38-4.82]), and arrhythmia OR 2.81 (95%CI [1.64-4.80]).
Overall, complications were higher in the LVAD group compared to those without LVAD treatment. Hospital readmissions due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the LVAD group, OR 2.98 (95%CI [1.38-6.43]). Despite the elevated risk of adverse events associated with LVADs, these devices have demonstrated a notable enhancement in the survival outcomes for patients with end-stage heart failure.