Search

In October 2018, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) revised the donor heart allocation system in an attempt to prioritize those patients with highest clinical urgency, reduce waitlist morality, and improve geographic equity in organ allocation. Our goal was to review the changes in the heart allocation policy and its impact on transplant characteristics and outcomes. After the new 2018 donor heart allocation system became effective, there has been a trend toward increased use of temporary mechanical circulatory support. Also, initial reports suggested reduced post-transplant survival, although the initial analysis was limited by short follow-up and small sample size. Recent reports however illustrate survival outcomes similar to those of the previous allocation system. The new donor heart allocation policy has been associated with a change in management strategies for bridging patients to transplantation, with increased utilization of temporary mechanical circulatory support, with still uncertain effects on post-transplant survival.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with high mortality rates and multiple organ damage. There is increasing evidence that these patients are at risk for various cardiovascular insults; however, there are currently no guidelines for the diagnosis and management of such cardiovascular complications in patients with coronavirus disease 2019. We share data and recommendations from a multidisciplinary team to highlight our institution’s clinical experiences and guidelines for managing cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Design, Setting, and Patients: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to one of six ICUs dedicated to the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 located in three hospitals within one academic medical center in Atlanta, Georgia. Measurements/Interventions: Chart review was conducted for sociodemographic, laboratory, and clinical data. Rates of specific cardiovascular complications were assessed, and data were analyzed using a chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum test for categorical and continuous variables. Additionally, certain cases are presented to demonstrate the sub committee’s recommendations. Main Results: Two-hundred eighty-eight patients were admitted to the ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, 86 died (29.9%), 242 (84.03%) had troponin elevation, 70 (24.31%) had dysrhythmias, four (1.39%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction, eight (2.78%) developed cor pulmonale, and 190 (65.97%) with shock. There was increased mortality risk in patients with greater degrees of troponin elevation (p < 0.001) and with the development of arrhythmias (p < 0.001), cor pulmonale (p < 0.001), and shock (p < 0.001). Conclusions: While there are guidelines for the diagnosis and management of pulmonary complications of coronavirus disease 2019, there needs to be more information regarding the management of cardiovascular complications as well. These recommendations garnered from the coronavirus disease 2019 cardiology subcommittee from our institution will add to the existing knowledge of these potential cardiovascular insults as well as highlight suggestions for the diagnosis and management of the range of cardiovascular complications of coronavirus disease 2019. Additionally, with the spread of coronavirus disease 2019, our case-based recommendations provide a bedside resource for providers newly caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Introduction: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation in patients with cardiac amyloidosis is controversial, with no clear guidelines for clinical decision-making.. The role of ICD implantation in hereditary Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy (hATTR-CM) is unclear. We sought to establish the burden of ventricular arrhythmias and the outcomes of ICD implantation in a single center cohort of hATTR-CM patients. Methods: A total of 69 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of hATTR-CM from genetic testing, and technetium pyrophosphate (PYP) scanning, or endomyocardial biopsy underwent retrospective chart review for demographic, clinical, and arrhythmia data. Results: Seventy-four percent of the cohort was male, with a mean age at diagnosis of 68 (SD=18 years). Sixty-five patients (94.2%) patients were African-American; all of whom carried the Valine 122 Isoleucine mutation. Most had systolic heart failure (New York Heart Association Staging II [18, 26%] and III [40, 58.8%]); 37 (54%) patients had an LVEF ≤ 35%. Thirty-six (52.2%) patients had documented episodes of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), three (4.3%) with ventricular tachycardia (VT), and one (1.5%) with ventricular fibrillation (VF). A total of 15 (21.7%) patients had ICDs placed for prevention of sudden cardiac death in the setting of low LVEF (EF Conclusions: In a cohort of patients with hATTR-CM, we observed a high incidence of NSVT, yet only 41% of patients with severe systolic heart failure had ICDs implanted. A high rate of successful defibrillation and no inappropriate ICD shocks were noted, suggesting that ICDs should be strongly considered, and may be underutilized, in patients with systolic heart failure and/or arrhythmias in the setting of hATTR-CM.

Background The Impella (ABIOMED, Danvers, MA) is a temporary left ventricular support device, intended for short-term cardiac support for percutaneous procedures and cardiac shock. The Impella device is available in several sizes capable of producing different flows. It is FDA approved for up to 6 days of support. The device can provide significantly higher blood flow than an intra-aortic balloon pump and can be implanted percutaneously. We sought to describe potential complications and outcomes associated with extended Impella use for cardiogenic shock. Methods We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent implantation of either the Impella CP (Impella 3.5) or Impella 5.0 from September 1, 2017 to September 1, 2019 at our institution. Hemolysis was defined as plasma free hemoglobin level > 50 mg/dL, a lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level > 500 units/L, and bilirubin increase > 1 mg/dL. Results 58 patients underwent percutaneous insertion of an Impella device, with the indication of cardiogenic shock in 32 patients (55%). In these 32 patients, only one had an Impella 2.5 device, 21 had an Impella CP (66%), and 10 (31%) had an Impella 5.0. The average age at time of implantation was 55 ± 17 years, and 25 patients were male (78%). Ejection fraction was 17 ± 11.7%. The average duration of Impella support was 5.5 days (1, 16 days). Complications included hematoma at the time of insertion (3 patients), leg ischemia (2 patients), improper positioning (7 patients), acute renal failure (28 patients), and hemolysis (20 patients). Hemolysis developed in 12 patients (57%) with the Impella CP and in 8 patients (80%) with the Impella 5.0, with an average LDH of 1452 units/L. 8 patients were transitioned to veno-arterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), with the Impella utilized for left ventricular venting. 9 patients (28%) eventually underwent durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on average 7 ± 6.1 days after Impella, and two patients underwent heart transplantation, both 9 days following Impella insertion. 23 patients (72%) did not survive past the initial hospitalization. Conclusion The Impella is a percutaneous temporary left ventricular support device used to provide additional cardiac output in patients with cardiogenic shock. Serious complications can occur with extended support, including hemolysis, acute renal failure, and high mortality. Of our 28 patients who received an Impella, 11 were able to be successfully bridged to either LVAD or heart transplantation with the Impella.

Introduction Aortic insufficiency (AI) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement is a serious, well established complication. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been successfully used in LVAD patients developing AI. However, femoral/iliac arterial access required for TAVR is not always possible due to arterial calcifications and small arterial size. Transcaval approach is a novel alternative percutaneous catheter route from the IVC, through the retroperitoneal space, into the abdominal aorta. Transcaval TAVR in LVAD patients with severe AI has not been described. CASE Patient is a 28 year old female with history of postpartum STEMI secondary to spontaneous LAD/LCX dissection requiring CABG with subsequent cardiogenic shock requiring emergent LVAD (HeartMate 3) placement. One month following LVAD implantation, she presents with intractable nausea and vomiting. Physical exam illustrates a cachectic female who was hypotensive, tachycardic, with cool extremities. Laboratory evaluation reveals elevated lactate, transaminases and creatinine. Abdominal CTA shows a prior dissection in the infrarenal abdominal aorta, occlusion of the right external iliac artery and stenosis in the left external iliac artery. On echocardiography, there is severe, continuous, aortic regurgitation increased in severity compared to baseline. Right heart catheterization illustrates right atrial pressure 18 mmHg, pulmonary artery pressure 53/25 mmHg, pulmonary wedge pressure 24 mmHg, and cardiac index 1.3 L/min/m2. Patient is referred for urgent TAVR via transcaval access due to her stenotic and small sized iliac arteries. A pigtail was inserted in the left femoral artery and advanced to the abdominal aorta and another pigtail was inserted in the right femoral vein and advanced to the IVC to align with the aorta one. From the IVC, an astato wire was crossed into the aorta using wats to electrify the wire. A Sapien 3 valve was deployed. The caval aortic fistula was closed with a covered aortic stent. Final angiography showed complete occlusion of the fistula. Post intervention, patient experienced immediate improvement with resolution of cardiogenic shock. At three months, she remained asymptomatic and echocardiogram showed a well seated valve with no AI. DISCUSSION We present an urgent transcaval TAVR performed for a LVAD patient presenting with cardiogenic shock due to AI. Transcaval TAVR is a promising intervention that can be successfully used in LVAD patients developing AI with challenging iliofemoral arterial access.

Purpose Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) combined with electrocardiographic mapping has emerged as a potential noninvasive ablation technique for the treatment of refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT). The role of SBRT in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is unknown. Methods Retrospective chart review was performed on all heart failure (HF) patients who underwent SBRT from January 1, 2018 to September 1, 2019. In this case series, we describe two patients who underwent SBRT after LVAD implantation. Results Of eleven heart failure patients who underwent SBRT, two had LVADs. The first was a 51 year old male with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia refractory to medical therapy and stellate ganglion block. Given his intractable VT and cardiogenic shock, he underwent HeartMate 3 LVAD implantation as bridge-to-transplant (BTT). After LVAD implantation, he continued to have refractory VT despite subsequent VT ablations. CT cardiac mapping identified a 4 mm arrhythmic scar along the lateral wall of the right ventricle, and SBRT was performed with a single fraction of 25 Gy. Two weeks after SBRT, he experienced recurrent VT and eventually underwent orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) four months after VT recurrence. The second patient was a 66 year old male with a history of nonischemic cardiomyopathy status post HeartWare LVAD as BTT who presented with recurrent VT three years following LVAD implantation. He was referred for SBRT after failure of antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy and VT ablation. 4D-CT simulation defined a myocardial scar in the left ventricular outflow tract, and SBRT was performed with a single fraction of 25 Gy. His ventricular arrhythmias returned after four months, and additional AAD were utilized to suppress the arrhythmias until he underwent OHT two months later. The frequency of hospitalizations for VT did decrease following SBRT (Pt 1: 6 pre-SBRT vs. 3 post-SBRT, Pt 2: 4 pre-SBRT vs. 2 post-SBRT), but did not reach statistical significance (p= 0.12). Conclusion LVAD patients are prone to ventricular arrhythmias, and noninvasive SBRT may serve as an alternative therapy if AAD and traditional VT ablation have been unsuccessful, potentially keeping ventricular arrhythmias quiescent while awaiting heart transplantation. Further research is needed in this patient population.