Effects of socioeconomic status on clinical outcomes with ventricular assist devices
- PMID: 30225924
- PMCID: PMC6489719
- DOI: 10.1002/clc.23070
Effects of socioeconomic status on clinical outcomes with ventricular assist devices
Abstract
Background: Lower socioeconomic status (SES) is a known risk factor for worse outcomes after major cardiovascular interventions. Furthermore, individuals with lower SES face barriers to evaluation for advanced heart failure therapies, including ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation.
Hypothesis: Examination of the effects of individual determinants of SES on VAD outcomes will show similar survival benefit in patients with lower compared with higher SES.
Methods: All VAD implants at the University of Florida from January 2008 to December 2015 were reviewed. Patient-level determinants of SES included place of residence, education level, marital status, insurance status, and financial resources stratified by percent federal poverty level. Survival or transplantation at 1 year, 30-day readmission, implant length of stay (LOS), and an aggregate of VAD-related complications were assessed in univariate fashion and multivariable regression modeling.
Results: A total of 111 patients were included (mean age at the time of implant 57.6 years, 82.8% men). More than half received destination therapy. At 1 year, 78.3% were alive on device support or had undergone successful transplantation. There were no differences in survival, 30-day readmission, or aggregate VAD complications by the SES category. Although patients with lower levels of education had longer LOS in univariate analysis, on multivariable ordinal regression modeling, this relationship was no longer seen.
Conclusions: Patients with lower SES receive the same survival benefit from VAD implantation and are not more likely to have 30-day readmissions, complications of device support, or prolonged implant LOS. Therefore, VAD implantation should not be withheld based on these parameters alone.
Keywords: VAD; socioeconomic status.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Conflict of interest statement
J.M.A. has served as a consultant for Thoratec Inc. C.T.K. has received research grant support from Thoratec Inc. and HeartWare.
References
-
- Krumholz HM, Merrill AR, Schone EM, et al. Patterns of hospital performance in acute myocardial infarction and heart failure 30‐day mortality and readmission. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2:407‐413. - PubMed
-
- Heidenreich PA, Trogdon JG, Khavjou OA, et al. on behalf of the American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee, Stroke Council, Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and Interdisciplinary Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Forecasting the future of cardiovascular disease in the United States: a policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:933‐944. - PubMed
-
- Rogers JG, Aaronson KD, Boyle AJ, et al. HeartMate II InvestigatorsContinuous flow left ventricular assist device improves functional capacity and quality of life of advanced heart failure patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:1826‐1834. - PubMed
-
- Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:1080‐1086. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical