Search

Objectives: To evaluate the correlation between left ventricular assist device flow parameter and invasive cardiac output measurements., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated right heart catheterization examinations performed in left ventricular assist device patients from 2 tertiary medical centres. We evaluated the correlation between cardiac output measurement methods (indirect Fick and thermodilution) and pump flow parameter using linear regression, and the agreement was graphically displayed using Bland-Altman plot technique. Clinical, echocardiographic, pump and haemodynamic parameters were compared between patients with and without discordance, defined as at least a 20% difference between measurements., Results: The study population consisted of 102 patients [median age 58 (51-64), 86% males, 17 ± 12 months post left ventricular assist device implantation] with a total of 544 measurements compared. Discordance between measurements was present in 102 of 226 (45%) comparisons between indirect Fick and pump flow and in 72 of 161 (48%) between thermodilution and pump flow. A comparison of indirect Fick and left ventricular assist device exhibited a statistical correlation of R = 0.751, and that of thermodilution and left ventricular assist device of R = 0.789. Parameters associated with the presence of discordance between cardiac output measurements included a higher rate of aortic valve opening, lower indirect Fick and higher thermodilution cardiac output. After excluding the lowest tertile of indirect Fick cardiac output values, the correlation between measurements improved (thermodilution: R = 0.879 and indirect Fick: R = 0.843, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The current left ventricular assist device flow parameter provides an estimation of cardiac output that correlates well with indirect Fick and exhibits the strongest correlation with thermodilution. This correlation was stronger after excluding lower cardiac output values., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: The safety and impact of sodium glucose transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-I) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are unknown., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients who underwent LVAD Heart Mate 3 (HM3) implantation at a single medical center and received SGLT2-I therapy following surgery was conducted. LVAD parameters, medical therapy, laboratory tests, echocardiography, and right heart catheterization (RHC) study results were recorded and compared before and after initiation of SGLT2-I., Results: SGLT2-I medications were initiated in 29 (21%) of 138 patients following HM3 implantation (23 (79%) received Empagliflozin and 6 (21%) Dapagliflozin). The mean age at the time of LVAD implantation was 62 ± 6.7 years, 25 (86%) were male, and 23 (79%) had diabetes mellitus. The median time from HM3 implantation to SGLT2-I initiation was 108 days, IQR (26-477). Following SGLT2-I therapy, the daily dose of furosemide decreased from 47 to 23.5 mg/day (mean difference = 23.5 mg/d, 95% CI 8.2-38.7, p = 0.004) and significant weight reduction was observed (mean difference 2.5 kg, 95% CI 0.7-4.3, p = 0.008). Moreover, a significant 5.6 mm Hg reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) was measured during RHC (95% CI 0.23-11, p = 0.042) in a subgroup of 11 (38%) patients. LVAD parameters were similar before and after SGLT2-I initiation (p > 0.2 for all). No adverse events were recorded during median follow-up of 354 days, IQR (206-786)., Conclusion: SGLT2-I treatment is safe in LVAD patients and might contribute to reduction in patients sPAP., (© 2024 International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: Investigate the safety and efficacy of preoperative levosimendan in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation., Methods: Consecutive patients who received LVADs (HeartMate-2, 3, HVAD) in a single tertiary medical center (2012-2018). INTERMACS profile 1 patients were excluded. The primary outcome was post-LVAD right ventricular failure (RVF) and inhospital mortality rates. The secondary outcomes included other clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters at follow-up., Results: Final cohort consisted of 62 patients (40[65%] in the levosimendan group and 22[35%] in the no-levosimendan group). Post-operative RVF rate and inotrope or ventilation support time were similar in the levosimendan and no-levosimendan groups (7.5% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.43, median of 51 vs. 72 h; P = 0.41 and 24 vs. 27 h; P = 0.19, respectively). Length of hospitalization, both total and in the intensive care unit, was not statistically significant (median days of 13 vs. 16; P = 0.34, and 3 vs. 4; P = 0.44, respectively). Post-operative laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and in-hospital complication rate did not differ between the groups, despite worse baseline clinical parameters in the Levosimendan group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital and long term mortality rate (2.5% vs. 4.5%; P > 0.999 and 10% vs. 27.3% respectively; P = 0.64)., Conclusions: Levosimendan infusion prior to LVAD implantation was safe and associated with comparable results without significant improved post-operative outcomes, including RVF., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is a frequent comorbidity among patients suffering from advanced heart failure necessitating a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of type 2 DM on early and long-term outcomes of patients following an LVAD implant., Methods: We performed an observational cohort study in a large tertiary care centre in Israel. All data of patients who underwent a continuous flow LVAD implant between 2006 and 2020 were extracted from our departmental database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group I (patients without diabetes) and group II (patients with diabetes). We compared short-term (30-day and 3-month) mortality, intermediate-term (1- and 3-year) mortality and long-term (5 year) mortality between the 2 groups., Results: The study population included 154 patients. Group I (patients without diabetes) comprised 88 patients and group II (patients with diabetes) comprised 66 patients. The mean follow-up duration was 38.2 ± 30.3 months. Short- and intermediate-term mortality (30 days, 1 year and 3 years) was higher in the group with DM compared with the group without DM but did not reach any statistically significant difference: 16.1% vs 9.8% (P = 0.312), 24.2% vs 17.3% (P = 0.399) and 30.6% vs 21.9% (P = 0.127) respectively. Long-term 5-year mortality was significantly higher in the group with DM compared to the group without: 38.7% vs 24.4% (P = 0.038). Furthermore, predictors of long-term mortality included diabetes (hazard ratio 2.09, confidence interval 1.34-2.84, P = 0.004), as demonstrated by regression analysis., Conclusions: Patients with diabetes and those without diabetes have similar 30-day and short- and intermediate-term mortality rates. The mortality risk of diabetic patients begins to increase 3 years after an LVAD implant. Diabetes is an independent predictor of long-term, 5-year mortality after an LVAD implant., Clinical Trial Registration: Ethical Committee of Sheba Medical Centre, Israel, on 2 December 2014, Protocol 4257., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To describe clinical characteristics, procedural details, specific challenges, and outcomes in patients with HeartMate3™ (HM3), a left ventricular assist device system with a magnetically levitated pump, undergoing ventricular tachycardia ablation (VTA)., Methods and Results: Data were collected from patients with an HM3 system who underwent VTA in seven tertiary centres. Data included baseline patient characteristics, procedural data, mortality, and arrhythmia-free survival. The study cohort included 19 patients with cardiomyopathy presenting with ventricular tachycardia (VT) (53% with VT storm). Ventricular tachycardias were induced in 89% of patients and a total of 41 VTs were observed. Severe electromagnetic interference was present on the surface electrocardiogram. Hence, VT localization required analysis of intra-cardiac signals or the use of filter in the 40-20 Hz range. The large house pump HM3 design obscured the cannula inflow and therefore multi imaging modalities were necessary to avoid catheter entrapment in the cannula. A total of 32 VTs were mapped and were successfully ablated (31% to the anterior wall, 38% to the septum and only 9% to the inflow cannula region). Non-inducibility of any VT was reached in 11 patients (58%). Over a follow-up of 429 (interquartile range 101-692) days, 5 (26%) patients underwent a redo VT ablation due to recurrent VTA and 2 (11%) patients died., Conclusions: Ventricular tachycardia ablation in patients with HM3 is feasible and safe when done in the appropriate setup. Long-term arrhythmia-free survival is acceptable but not well predicted by non-inducibility at the end of the procedure., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The accepted use of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology as a good alternative for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure together with the improved survival of the LVAD-supported patients on the device and the scarcity of donor hearts has significantly increased the population of LVAD-supported patients. The expected and non-expected device-related and patient-device interaction complications impose a significant burden on the medical system exceeding the capacity of the LVAD implanting centres. The ageing of the LVAD-supported patients, mainly those supported with the 'destination therapy' indication, increases the risk for those patients to experience comorbidities common in the older population. The probability of an LVAD-supported patient presenting with medical emergency to a local emergency department, internal, or surgical ward of a non-LVAD implanting centre is increasing. The purpose of this trilogy is to supply the immediate tools needed by the non-LVAD specialized physician: ambulance clinicians, emergency ward physicians, general cardiologists, internists, anaesthesiologists, and surgeons, to comply with the medical needs of this fast-growing population of LVAD-supported patients. The different issues discussed will follow the patient's pathway from the ambulance to the emergency department and from the emergency department to the internal or surgical wards and eventually to the discharge home from the hospital back to the general practitioner. In this first part of the trilogy on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider, after the introduction on the assist devices technology in general, definitions and structured approach to the assessment of the LVAD-supported patient in the ambulance and emergency department is presented including cardiopulmonary resuscitation for LVAD-supported patients., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: While left ventricular assisted devices (LVAD) have revolutionized the treatment of advanced heart failure, they are associated with a wide range of complications, including bleeding and infection which are the most common complications reported in the literature. Our case series report four unusual complications not related to gastrointestinal bleeding and infections and their management., Case Presentation: A 61 year old female after LVAD implantation with late onset of severe symptomatic aortic regurgitation treated by transfemoral transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) with good long term results. A 75 year old male patient with acute pump failure secondary to cable damage, who underwent urgent pump replacement. A 49 year old female patient with a history of myoma who developed massive uterine bleeding which was treated with emergent open hysterectomy after failed gonadotropin-releasing hormone therapy replacement. A 57 year old male patient with device display failure 1 month after LVAD implantation without the ability to monitor speed, power consumption and blood flow., Conclusions: LVAD patients can be presented with a great variety of complications. Physicians should be aware of their manifestations and the management options.

Renal function improves early after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation but later decline has been observed. We sought to determine the occurrence and evaluate possible causes for this decline. In 62 consecutive patients with HeartMateII LVAD with available calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR, ml/min/1.73 m) 1 year after implant, GFR was assessed repeatedly and possible predictors for decline from 3 to 12 months were investigated. Post-mortem renal specimens for patients supported with an LVAD were evaluated. GFR 54.5 ± 19.5 at admission increased to 66.4 ± 22.3 preoperatively and to 79.2 ± 30.1 ~1 month after implantation. Subsequently at ~3 months GFR declined to 74.7 ± 25.4, at ~6 months to 68.8 ± 23.1, and ~1 year after implant to 63.9 ± 17.7. Glomerular filtration rate at 1 year was significantly lower (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.005) than GFR 1, 3, and 6 months after implant. Early rise in GFR after surgery was not associated with late decline. Shorter bypass time (β = -0.09, p = 0.048) and higher albumin 3 months after LVAD (β = 14.4, p = 0.025) were significantly associated with less later decline in GFR. Arteriosclerosis was identified in autopsy renal specimens. In conclusion, early gains in renal function after LVAD implant are not sustained in many patients. Patient, device, and operative factors may influence long-term renal function in these patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) on subsequent rejection after heart transplantation (HT) by using cellular rejection score and antibody-mediated rejection score (AMRS) and correlating with subsequent allograft outcomes. We retrospectively analyzed 108 consecutive patients who underwent HT without (n = 67) or with (n = 41) previous CF-LVAD in 2008 to 2014. The 24 months cumulative effect of rejection was calculated by using cellular rejection scores and AMRS, based on the total number of rejections divided by valid biopsy samples. Vasculopathy was assessed both by routine coronary angiogram and intravascular ultrasound. Patients who underwent pretransplant CF-LVAD demonstrated a significant increase in the number of cellular rejection episodes as compared with the nonbridged patients, for 1 and 2 years of follow-up (p = 0.026 and p = 0.016), respectively. There were no differences in AMRS (p >0.05) and allograft outcomes, such as vasculopathy and overall survival (p >0.05) over the period of follow-up. Implantation of a CF-LVAD before HT impacts cellular rejection during the post-transplant period. Despite these findings, CF-LVAD does not translate to differences in allograft outcomes after transplant, such as vasculopathy and overall survival over the period of the study. In conclusion, whether this affects longer term outcomes than studied remains to be determined., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Congestive heart failure (HF) remains a serious burden in the Western World. Despite advances in pharmacotherapy and resynchronization, many patients have progression to end-stage HF. These patients may be candidates for heart transplant or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Heart transplants are limited by organ shortages and in some cases by patient comorbidities; therefore, LVAD therapy is emerging as a strategy of bridge to transplant or as a destination therapy in patients ineligible for transplant. Patients initially ineligible for a transplant may, in certain cases, become eligible for transplant after physiologic improvement with LVAD therapy, and a small number of patients with an LVAD may have sufficient recovery of myocardial function to allow device explantation. This clinically oriented review will describe (1) the most frequently used pump types and aspects of the continuous-flow physiology and (2) the clinical indications for and the shift toward the use of LVADs in less sick patients with HF. Additionally, we review complications of LVAD therapy and project future directions in this field. We referred to the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support, landmark trials, and results from recently published studies as major sources in obtaining recent outcomes, and we searched for related published literature via PubMed. This review focuses primarily on clinical practice for primary care physicians and non-HF cardiologists in the United States., (Copyright © 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Neurohormonal blockade drug therapy (NHBDT) is the cornerstone therapy in heart failure (HF) management for promoting reverse cardiac remodeling and improving outcomes. It's utility in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) supported patients remains undefined. Sixty-four patients who received continuous flow LVAD at our institution were retrospectively reviewed and divided into 2 groups: no-NHBDT group (n = 33) received LVAD support only and NHBDT group (n = 31) received concurrent NHBDT based on the clinical judgment of the attending physicians. Cardiac remodeling (echocardiographic parameters and biomarkers) and clinical outcome (functional status, HF-related hospital readmissions, and mortality) data were collected. A statistically significant increase in ejection fraction, decrease in LV end-diastolic diameter index and LV mass index, and a sustained reduction in N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) were observed in the NHBDT group at 6 months after LVAD implant (p <0.05). NHBDT-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvement in New York Heart Association functional classification and 6-minute-walk distance throughout the study. The combined end point of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization was significantly reduced in patients receiving NHBDT (p = 0.013) associated primarily with a 12.1% absolute reduction in HF-related hospitalizations (p = 0.046). In conclusion, NHBDT in LVAD-supported patients is associated with a significant reversal in adverse cardiac remodeling and a reduction in morbidity and mortality compared with LVAD support alone., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) patients have poor prognosis due to progressive heart failure characterized by impaired ventricular filling of either or both ventricles. The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcome of end-stage RCM patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and to determine factors that may be associated with improved survival., Methods: This investigation is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data that include 28 consecutive patients with end-stage RCM who received continuous-flow LVADs at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Outcome was assessed by survival with LVAD support until heart transplantation or all-cause mortality., Results: The mean follow-up time post-LVAD implantation was 448 ± 425 days. The mean hospitalization time was 29 ± 19 days and was complicated mainly by post-operative right ventricular (RV) failure requiring short-term medical support. The short-term in-hospital mortality was 14%. Ten patients underwent heart transplantation with 100% survival post-transplant during the follow-up period. One-year survival for patients with LVADs without transplantation was 64%, and was not significantly different between amyloidosis and non-amyloidosis patients. Larger left ventricle (LV) end-diastolic and end-systolic dimensions were significantly associated with improved survival rates (RR = 0.94 and 0.95, p < 0.05, respectively), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) ≤46 mm was associated with increased mortality post-LVAD implantation., Conclusions: LVAD is a feasible, life-saving therapy for end-stage heart failure related to RCM, especially as a bridge to transplant and in patients with larger LV dimensions., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)