Achieving optimal anticoagulation remains a significant challenge in managing patients on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Maintaining tight control of anticoagulation can be time-consuming but essential in preventing serious complications such as pump thrombosis and bleeding.
Objectives:
The efficacy and safety of a nurse coordinator-driven outpatient protocol (NCDOP) was evaluated for managing anticoagulation for LVAD patients.
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was performed as part of a single-center quality improvement project. The primary outcome was time in therapeutic range (TTR), a measure of anticoagulation target efficacy before and after the implementation of the protocol.
Results:
Among 47 patients, who served as their own control, there was no significant change in TTR or proportion of hospitalizations following institution of the protocol. Pre-NCDOP, there were six major bleeding and two thrombotic events, and none during the post-NCDOP period.
Conclusions:
A NCDOP is a reliable method to manage anticoagulation in LVAD patients and facilitates efficient care delivery. Future multicenter studies with larger patient cohorts are warranted to expand on the findings outlined in this manuscript.
WysowskiDKNourjahPSwartzL. Bleeding complications with warfarin use: a prevalent adverse effect resulting in regulatory action. Arch Intern Med2007; 167(13): 1414–1419.
2.
BraungartCWatsonARubinR. The effects of interprofessional collaboration on nurse managed warfarin program. J Interprofessional Educ Pract2018; 13: 56–58.
3.
FowlerC. Reducing international normalized ratio (INR) related after-hours calls: a performance improvement (PI) project. J Am Med Dir Assoc2017; 18(3): B18.
4.
ShimabukuroTTKramerJMcGuireM. Development and implementation of a nurse-managed anticoagulation program. J Healthc Qual2004; 26(1): 4–12.
5.
LeaJCFloroffCKIngemiAI, et al. Impact of time in therapeutic range after left ventricular assist device placement: a comparison between thrombus and thrombus-free periods. J Thromb Thrombolysis2019; 47(3): 361–368.
6.
NassifMELaRueSJRaymerDS, et al. Relationship between anticoagulation intensity and thrombotic or bleeding outcomes among outpatients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. Circ Heart Fail2016; 9(5): e002680.
7.
MehraMRStewartGCUberPA. The vexing problem of thrombosis in long-term mechanical circulatory support. J Hear Lung Transplant2014; 33(1): 1–11.
8.
KuyumjianYMMiyaresMALeverockJ, et al. A multidisciplinary team-based process improves outpatient anticoagulation quality with continuous-flow left-ventricular assist devices. Int J Cardiol2016; 218: 118–119.
9.
ThompsonMAJacksonRCFrakesM, et al. Initiation of a standardized international normalized ratio management protocol reduces out of range days in an ambulatory LVAD population. J Hear Lung Transplant2017; 36(4): S443–S444.
10.
RosendaalFRCannegieterSCvan der MeerFJM, et al. A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy. Thromb Haemost1993; 69(3): 236–239.
11.
KirklinJKPaganiFDKormosRL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Hear Lung Transplant2017; 36(10): 1080–1086.
12.
LawsonR. Small sample confidence intervals for the odds ratio. Commun Stat – Simul Comput2004; 33(4): 1095–1113.
13.
PokorneySDSimonDNThomasL, et al. Patients’ time in therapeutic range on warfarin among US patients with atrial fibrillation: results from ORBIT-AF registry. Am Heart J2015; 170(1): 141–148.e1.
14.
OdénAFahlénMHartRG. Optimal INR for prevention of stroke and death in atrial fibrillation: a critical appraisal. Thromb Res2006; 117(5): 493–499.
15.
BakerWLCiosDASanderSD, et al. Meta-analysis to assess the quality of warfarin control in atrial fibrillation patients in the United States. J Manag Care Pharm2009; 15(3): 244–252.
16.
DemirozuZTRadovancevicRHochmanLF, et al. Arteriovenous malformation and gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device. J Hear lung Transplant2011; 30(8): 849–853.
17.
den ExterPLBeeresSLMAEikenboomJ, et al. Anticoagulant treatment and bleeding complications in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther2020; 18(6): 363–372.
18.
HollisIBDoligalskiCTJenningsDJ. Pharmacotherapy for durable left ventricular assist devices. Pharmacotherapy2021; 41(1): 14–27.
19.
SaeedOColomboPCMehraMR, et al. Effect of aspirin dose on hemocompatibility-related outcomes with a magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device: an analysis from the MOMENTUM 3 study. J Hear Lung Transplant2020; 39(6): 518–525.
20.
KhedrakiRVanichsarnCMoitozaA, et al. Aspirin: therapy or trouble for LVAD patients?J Hear Lung Transplant2019; 38(Suppl. 4): S423.
21.
MolinaEJShahPKiernanMS, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons intermacs 2020 annual report. Ann Thorac Surg2021; 111(3): 778–792.
22.
OttoCMNishimuraRABonowRO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol2021; 77(4): 450–500.
23.
WanYHeneghanCPereraR, et al. Anticoagulation control and prediction of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2008; 1(2): 84–91.
24.
GallagherAMSetakisEPlumbJM, et al. Risks of stroke and mortality associated with suboptimal anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients. Thromb Haemost2011; 106(5): 968–977.
25.
Al DanafJButlerJYehyaA. Updates on device-based therapies for patients with heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep2018; 15(2): 53–60.
26.
HardsREdwardsGKavanaghC, et al. Managing anticoagulation in LVAD patients: the harefield experience. J Hear Lung Transplant2017; 36(4): S12–S13.
27.
HalderLCRichardsonLBGarberichRF, et al. Time in therapeutic range for left ventricular assist device patients anticoagulated with warfarin: a correlation to clinical outcomes. ASAIO J2017; 63(1): 37–40.
28.
SaleemSMenonSGEgnaczykGF, et al. 227 – home INR monitoring versus lab monitoring in patients with left ventricular assist device. J Card Fail2016; 22(Suppl. 8): S80.
29.
DauphinCLegaultBJaffeuxP, et al. Comparison of INR stability between self-monitoring and standard laboratory method: preliminary results of a prospective study in 67 mechanical heart valve patients. Arch Cardiovasc Dis2008; 101(11): 753–761.
30.
BishopMAStreiffMBEnsorCR, et al. Pharmacist-managed international normalized ratio patient self-testing is associated with increased time in therapeutic range in patients with left ventricular assist devices at an Academic Medical Center. ASAIO J2014; 60(2): 193–198.
31.
NguyenVNStevensCABrambattiM, et al. Improved time in therapeutic range with international normalized ratio remote monitoring for patients with left ventricular assist devices. ASAIO J2022; 68(3): 363–368.
32.
MartinezBKYikBTranR, et al. Meta-analysis of time in therapeutic range in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients receiving warfarin. Artif Organs2018; 42(7): 700–704.
33.
KiernanMSJosephSMKatzJN, et al. Sharing the care of mechanical circulatory support. Circ Hear Fail2015; 8(3): 629–635.
34.
YinMYStregeJGilbertEM, et al. Impact of shared care in remote areas for patients with left ventricular assist devices. JACC Hear Fail2020; 8(4): 302–312.
