Bridging cardiogenic shock patients with short-term ventricular support at a community hospital to long-term ventricular support at a tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Patients in cardiogenic shock require immediate circulatory support. Outcomes of patients who underwent short-term ventricular assist device (STVAD) implantation in a community hospital (CH) as a bridge to a long-term VAD (LTVAD) were compared with those who received both implants at the same tertiary hospital (TH).

METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed for patients with a STVAD who were bridged to a LTVAD in a TH from 1997 to 2010. We studied outcomes and survival censored for cardiac transplantation.

RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients (73% male) were identified. Mean age was 52 ± 16 years, 30% were diabetic, and 65% had intra-aortic balloon pump support. Reasons for STVAD implantation were an acute myocardial infarction, 38%; post-cardiotomy, 38%, decompensated chronic heart failure, 19%; and others, 5%. A STVAD was implanted in a CH in 20 patients (54%), and they had fewer cardiovascular risk factors than those whose STVAD was implanted at the TH. All patients at the CH were at Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 compared with 71% at the TH (p = 0.014). Patients from the CH tended to die sooner after LTVAD implant, although long-term survival was similar. At the 1-year follow-up, 65% from the CH were alive or had received a transplant vs 60% from the TH.

CONCLUSION: Patients with cardiogenic shock in whom a STVAD was implanted in a CH and then were bridged to a LTVAD in a TH had similar long-term survival as those bridged to LTVAD at the TH.