Background: Patients with long-term ventricular assist devices (VAD) are predisposed to infection, bleeding, and pressure injuries at the insertion of the driveline. There is no consensus on a driveline dressing protocol. Chlorhexidine is often used to clean the driveline exit site and has been associated with lower rates of infection. For driveline coverage, bacteriostatic agents and transparent film have shown good results, but are costly. The same issue was associated with anchorage devices.
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the types of dressings used in the driveline of patients using HeartMate (HM) and to describe the incidence density of local complications (infection, bleeding, and pressure injury) within 30 days postoperatively.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted and included 22 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit after implantation of HM II and III in a Brazilian private hospital.
Results: Several types of dressings were used in the drivelines. There were 22 different types of dressings. Dressing type 6 (Chlorhexidine, Excilon, Gauze and IV3000) were the most used (45.4%). Subjects using the Flexi-Trak anchoring device had a higher rate of local bleeding (50.0%) and those who used the Hollister device had more infection (61.1%) and pressure injury associated with a medical device (11.1%), compared to others. Infection was the primary complication (45.4%), followed by local bleeding (27.7%).
Conclusion: Despite the high variability of products used in the driveline of patients using HeartMate, the dressing made with chlorhexidine, silver-impregnated absorbent foam and transparent film, and the use of anchoring devices was the most frequently used. Infection was the most common complication.
Keywords: Heart artificial; Heart failure; Heart-assist devices; Therapeutics; Wound infection.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.