Key result
Joint arthroplasty in LVAD patients shows similar postoperative complication rates versus matched controls.
Why the study?
There have been limited case series describing joint arthroplasty in patients with left ventricular assist devices.
Does joint arthroplasty in patients with left ventricular assist devices increase postoperative complications compared to matched controls without LVADs?
Case-Control (n=45)
Yes
Does joint arthroplasty in patients with left ventricular assist devices increase postoperative complications compared to matched controls without LVADs?
Joint arthroplasty can be performed in patients with LVADs with similar 1-year postoperative complication rates compared to matched non-LVAD patients, supporting its use to improve physical function in this population.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports joint arthroplasty in LVAD patients to improve function; extends evidence to this high-risk population.
Background: There have been limited case series describing joint arthroplasty (JA) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs).In the largest retrospective matched cohort study to date, we compared the postoperative complications of JA among patients with and without LVADs.Methods: A retrospective study from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, was conducted comparing patients undergoing JA with LVADs to controls without LVADs matched for gender, age, body mass index, history of myocardial infarction, arthroplasty type, year of surgery, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index in a 3:1 fashion.There were 13 JA procedures in the LVAD group and 39 in the control group.Postoperative complications of interest included emergency department visits within 90 days, any postoperative infection within 1 year, postoperative thrombosis within 1 year, need for transfusion within 1 year, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function scores, as well as 2-year survival from revision and 2-year mortality.Results: LVAD patients had similar rates of 90-day emergency department visits (7.7% vs 23.1%; P = .42),thrombosis (7.6% vs 2.6%; P = .44),transfusion (30.8% vs 23.1%; P = .71),and any infection (7.6% vs 23.1%; P = .41)as control patients without LVADs.The proportion of patients reporting improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function scores was similar (83% LVAD group vs 72% control; P = 1.00).There was one reoperation (7.7%) in the LVAD group and 7 reoperations (17.9%) in the control group (P = .66).Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated similar 5-year survival from reoperation (P = .12)and mortality (P = .95)between the 2 groups.Conclusions: This is the largest series of patients undergoing JA after an LVAD procedure.JA patients with LVADs had similar 1-year postoperative complications to their matched counterparts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kobayashi et al. (2026) conducted a case-control in Joint Arthroplasty in Heart Failure (n=45). Joint Arthroplasty with Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) vs. Joint Arthroplasty without LVAD (matched controls) was evaluated on Any postoperative infection within 1 year (p=0.41). Joint arthroplasty in patients with left ventricular assist devices had similar 1-year postoperative complication rates, including infections (7.6% vs 23.1%), compared to matched controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: