Propensity score-based analysis of long-term outcome of patients on HeartWare and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support

ECPELLA as a bridge-to-decision in refractory cardiogenic shock: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

In refractory cardiogenic shock, temporary mechanical support (tMCS) may be crucial for maintaining tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. tMCS can serve as a bridge-to-decision to assess eligibility for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation or heart transplantation, or as a bridge-to-recovery. ECPELLA is a novel tMCS configuration combining venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with Impella. The present study presents the clinical parameters, outcomes, and complications of patients supported with ECPELLA.

METHODS

All patients supported with ECPELLA at University Medical Centre Utrecht between December 2020 and August 2023 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes were LVAD implantation/heart transplantation and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty patients with an average age of 51 years, and of whom 70% were males, were included. Causes of cardiogenic shock were acute heart failure (due to acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, or after cardiac surgery) or chronic heart failure, respectively 70 and 30% of cases. The median duration of ECPELLA support was 164 h (interquartile range 98-210). In 50% of cases, a permanent LVAD was implanted. Cardiac recovery within 30 days was seen in 30% of cases and 30-day mortality rate was 20%. ECPELLA support was associated with major bleeding (40%), haemolysis (25%), vascular complications (30%), kidney failure requiring replacement therapy (50%), and Impella failure requiring extraction (15%).

CONCLUSION

ECPELLA can be successfully used as a bridge to LVAD implantation or as a bridge-to-recovery in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. Despite a significant number of complications, 30-day mortality was lower than observed in previous cohorts.

FLAVOUR Study: FLow profiles And postoperative VasOplegia after continUous-flow left ventriculaR assist device implantation

This study aims to associate the incidence of postoperative vasoplegia and short-term survival to the implantation of various left ventricular assist devices differing in hemocompatibility and flow profiles. The overall incidence of vasoplegia was 25.3% (73/289 patients) and 30.3% (37/122), 25.0% (18/72), and 18.9% (18/95) in the axial flow (AXF), centrifugal flow (CF), and centrifugal flow with artificial pulse (CFAP) group, respectively. Vasoplegia was associated with longer intensive care (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality. ICU and in-hospital LOS and 1-year mortality were the lowest in the CFAP group. Post hoc analysis resulted in a p-value of 0.43 between AXF and CF; 0.35 between CF and CFAP; and 0.06 between AXF and CFAP. Although there is a trend in diminished incidence of vasoplegia, pooled logistic regression using flow profile and variables that remained after feature selection showed that flow profile was not an independent predictor for postoperative vasoplegia.

Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity-2 Predicts Mortality and Right Heart Failure in Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device

BACKGROUND

Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity-2 (sST2) predicts mortality in patients with heart failure. The predictive value of sST2 in patients with a left ventricular assist device remains unknown. Therefore, we studied the relationship between sST2 and outcome after left ventricular assist device implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

sST2 levels of patients with a left ventricular assist device implanted between January 2015 and December 2022 were included in this observational study. The median follow-up was 25 months, during which 1573 postoperative sST2 levels were measured in 199 patients, with a median of 29 ng/mL. Survival of patients with normal and elevated preoperative levels was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis, which did not differ significantly (P=0.22) between both groups. The relationship between postoperative sST2, survival, and right heart failure was evaluated using a joint model, which showed a significant relationship between the absolute sST2 level and mortality, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10-1.130; P<0.01) and an HR of 1.22 (95% CI, 1.07-1.39; P=0.01) for right heart failure, both per 10-unit sST2 increase. The sST2 instantaneous change was not predictive for survival or right heart failure (P=0.99 and P=0.94, respectively). Multivariate joint model analysis showed a significant relationship between sST2 with mortality adjusted for NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide), with an HR of 1.19 (95% CI, 1.00-1.42; P=0.05), whereas the HR of right heart failure was not significant (1.22 [95% CI, 0.94-1.59]; P=0.14), both per 10-unit sST2 increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Time-dependent postoperative sST2 predicts all-cause mortality after left ventricular assist device implantation after adjustment for NT-proBNP. Future research is warranted into possible target interventions and the optimal monitoring frequency.

PERSUADE Survey-PERioperative AnestheSia and Intensive Care Management of Left VentricUlar Assist DevicE Implantation in Europe and the United States

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively assess relevant institutional variations in anesthesia and intensive care management during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

DESIGN

The authors used a prospective data analysis.

SETTING

This was an online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were from LVAD centers in Europe and the US.

INTERVENTIONS

After investigating initial interest, 91 of 202 European and 93 of 195 US centers received a link to the survey targeting institutional organization and experience, perioperative hemodynamic monitoring, medical management, and postoperative intensive care aspects.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The survey was completed by 73 (36.1%) European and 60 (30.8%) US centers. Although most LVAD implantations were performed in university hospitals (>5 years of experience), significant differences were observed in the composition of the preoperative multidisciplinary team and provision of intraoperative care. No significant differences in monitoring or induction agents were observed. Propofol was used more often for maintenance in Europe (p < 0.001). The choice for inotropes changed significantly from preoperatively (more levosimendan in Europe) to intraoperatively (more use of epinephrine in both Europe and the US). The use of quantitative methods for defining right ventricular (RV) function was reported more often from European centers than from US centers (p < 0.05). Temporary mechanical circulatory support for the treatment of RV failure was more often used in Europe. Nitric oxide appeared to play a major role only intraoperatively. There were no significant differences in early postoperative complications reported from European versus US centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the perioperative practice of care for patients undergoing LVAD implantation differs in several aspects between Europe and the US, there were no perceived differences in early postoperative complications.

Five-Year Outcome After Continuous Flow LVAD With Full-Magnetic (HeartMate 3) Versus Hybrid Levitation System (HeartWare): A Propensity-Score Matched Study From an All-Comers Multicentre Registry

Despite the withdrawal of the HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (HVAD), hundreds of patients are still supported with this continuous-flow pump, and the long-term management of these patients is still under debate. This study aims to analyse 5 years survival and freedom from major adverse events in patients supported by HVAD and HeartMate3 (HM3). From 2010 to 2022, the MIRAMACS Italian Registry enrolled all-comer patients receiving a LVAD support at seven Cardiac Surgery Centres. Out of 447 LVAD implantation, 214 (47.9%) received HM3 and 233 (52.1%) received HVAD. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for major confounders showed an increased risk for mortality (HR 1.5 [1.2-1.9]; p = 0.031), for both ischemic stroke (HR 2.08 [1.06-4.08]; p = 0.033) and haemorrhagic stroke (HR 2.6 [1.3-4.9]; p = 0.005), and for pump thrombosis (HR 25.7 [3.5-188.9]; p < 0.001) in HVAD patients. The propensity-score matching analysis (130 pairs of HVAD vs. HM3) confirmed a significantly lower 5 years survival (81.25% vs. 64.1%; p 0.02), freedom from haemorrhagic stroke (90.5% vs. 70.1%; p < 0.001) and from pump thrombosis (98.5% vs. 74.7%; p < 0.001) in HVAD cohort. Although similar perioperative outcome, patients implanted with HVAD developed a higher risk for mortality, haemorrhagic stroke and thrombosis during 5 years of follow-up compared to HM3 patients.

Reproductive health after thoracic transplantation: An ISHLT expert consensus statement

Pregnancy after thoracic organ transplantation is feasible for select individuals but requires multidisciplinary subspecialty care. Key components for a successful pregnancy after lung or heart transplantation include preconception and contraceptive planning, thorough risk stratification, optimization of maternal comorbidities and fetal health through careful monitoring, and open communication with shared decision-making. The goal of this consensus statement is to summarize the current evidence and provide guidance surrounding preconception counseling, patient risk assessment, medical management, maternal and fetal outcomes, obstetric management, and pharmacologic considerations.

Identifying patients at risk: multi-centre comparison of HeartMate 3 and HeartWare left ventricular assist devices

AIMS

Since the withdrawal of HeartWare (HVAD) from the global market, there is an ongoing discussion if and which patients require prophylactically exchange for a HeartMate 3 (HM3). Therefore, it is important to study outcome differences between HVAD and HM3 patients. Because centres differ in patient selection and standard of care, we performed a propensity score (PS)-based study including centres that implanted both devices and aimed to identify which HVAD patients are at highest risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed an international multi-centre study (n = 1021) including centres that implanted HVAD and HM3. PS-matching was performed using clinical variables and the implanting centre. Survival and complications were compared. As a sensitivity analysis, PS-adjusted Cox regression was performed. Landmark analysis with conditional survival >2 years was conducted to evaluate long-term survival differences. To identify which HVAD patients may benefit from a HM3 upgrade, Cox regression using pre-operative variables and their interaction with device type was performed. Survival was significantly better for HM3 patients (P < 0.01) in 458 matched patients, with a median follow-up of 23 months. Within the matched cohort, HM3 patients had a median age of 58 years, and 83% were male, 80% of the HVAD patients were male, with a median age of 59 years. PS-adjusted Cox regression confirmed a significantly better survival for HM3 patients when compared with HVAD, with a HR of 1.46 (95% confidence interval 1.14-1.85, P < 0.01). Pump thrombosis (P < 0.01) and ischaemic stroke (P < 0.01) occurred less in HM3 patients. No difference was found for haemorrhagic stroke, right heart failure, driveline infection, and major bleeding. Landmark-analysis confirmed a significant difference in conditional survival >2 years after implantation (P = 0.03). None of the pre-operative variable interactions in the Cox regression were significant.

CONCLUSIONS

HM3 patients have a significantly better survival and a lower incidence of ischaemic strokes and pump thrombosis than HVAD patients. This survival difference persisted after 2 years of implantation. Additional research using post-operative variables is warranted to identify which HVAD patients need an upgrade to HM3 or expedited transplantation.

Validity and success rate of noninvasive mean arterial blood pressure measurements in cf-LVAD patients: A technical review

BACKGROUND

The life expectancy of patients with a continuous flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) is increasing. Adequate determination and regulation of mean arterial pressure (MAP) is important to prevent adverse events. Given the low pulsatility characteristics in these patients, standard blood pressure equipment is inadequate to monitor MAP and not recommended. We provide an overview of currently available noninvasive techniques, using an extensive search strategy in three online databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Google Scholar) to find validation studies using invasive intra-arterial blood pressure measurement as a reference. Mean differences with the reference values smaller than 5 ± 8 mm Hg were considered acceptable.

OBSERVATIONS

After deduplication, screening, and exclusion of incorrect sources, eleven studies remained with 3139 successful MAP measurements in 386 patients. Four noninvasive techniques, using Doppler, pulse oximetry, finger cuff volume clamp, or slow upper arm cuff deflation, were identified and evaluated for validity and success rate in cf-LVAD patients. Here, a comprehensive technical background of the blood pressure measurement methods is provided in combination with a clinical use comparison. Of the reported noninvasive techniques, slow cuff devices performed most optimally (mean difference 1.3 ± 5.2 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results are encouraging and indicate that noninvasive blood pressure monitoring options with acceptable validity and success rate are available. Further technical development and validation is warranted for the growing population of patients on long-term cf-LVAD support.

Third-generation continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a comparative outcome analysis by device type

AIMS

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) have become a standard of care in end-stage heart failure. Limited data exist comparing outcomes of HeartMate3 (HM3) and HeartWare HVAD (HW). We aimed to compare midterm outcomes of these devices.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Investigator-initiated retrospective-observational comparative analysis of all patients who underwent primary LVAD implantation of either HM3 or HW at our centre between January 2010 and December 2020. Data were derived from a prospective registry. Primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and heart transplantation. Secondary endpoints included device-related major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which included major bleeding, major neurological dysfunction (defined as persisting neurological impairment for ≥24 h), device-related major infection (excluding driveline infections), major device malfunctions leading to re-intervention or partial device exchange (pump failure, outflow-graft twist or failure, controller failure, battery failure, patient cable failure, but excluding pump thrombosis), and pump thrombosis. Further secondary endpoints included right heart failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, driveline infections, and surgical re-interventions. The secondary outcomes were analysed not only for the first event but also for recurrent events. The analysis included competing risks analysis and recurrent event regression analysis, with adjustment for confounders age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) level. Out of 106 primary CF-LVAD implantations, 36 (34%) received HM3 and 70 (66%) received HW. Median follow-up was 1.48 years [interquartile range 0.67, 2.41]. HM3 was more often implanted in men (91.7% vs. 72.9%, P = 0.024); patients were older (median 61 years [54, 66.5] vs. 52.5 years [43, 60], P < 0.001), had a higher BMI (median 26.7 kg/m² [23.4, 29.0] vs. 24.3 kg/m² [20.7, 27.4], P = 0.013), had more comorbidities, and were more likely targeted for destination therapy (36.1% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.010). Death occurred in 33.3% of HM3 patients, compared with 22.9% of HW patients, P = 0.247 (probability of survival at 4 years, 54.7% vs. 74.1%, P = 0.296). After adjustment for confounders, we observed a significant six-fold risk increase in device malfunctions for HW [hazard ratio (HR) 6.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.89, 22.32], P = 0.003], but no significant differences in pump thrombosis (P = 0.173) or overall survival (P = 0.801).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing midterm outcomes between HM3 and HW for LVAD support from a prospective registry, HW patients had a significantly higher risk of device malfunctions. No significant differences were evident between devices in overall survival and in respect to most outcomes.

When Nothing Goes Right: Risk Factors and Biomarkers of Right Heart Failure after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Right heart failure (RHF) is a severe complication after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The aim of this study was to analyze the incidence, risk factors, and biomarkers for late RHF including the possible superiority of the device and implantation method. This retrospective, single-center study included patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2014 and 2018. Primary outcome was freedom from RHF over one-year after LVAD implantation; secondary outcomes included pre- and postoperative risk factors and biomarkers for RHF. Of the 145 consecutive patients (HeartMate 3/HVAD: n = 70/75; female: 13.8%), thirty-one patients (21.4%) suffered RHF after a mean LVAD support of median (IQR) 105 (118) days. LVAD implantation method (less invasive: 46.7% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.29) did not differ significantly in patients with or without RHF, whereas the incidence of RHF was lower in HeartMate 3 vs. HVAD patients (12.9% vs. 29.3%, p = 0.016). Multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis identified HVAD (HR 4.61, 95% CI 1.12-18.98; p = 0.03), early post-op heart rate (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99; p = 0.02), and central venous pressure (CVP) (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.39; p = 0.01) as independent risk factors for RHF, but no association of RHF with increased all-cause mortality (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.01; p = 0.50) was found. To conclude, HVAD use, lower heart rate, and higher CVP early post-op were independent risk factors for RHF following LVAD implantation.

Prognostic impact of functional mitral regurgitation prior to left ventricular assist device implantation

BACKGROUND

Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is a common finding of advanced heart failure with detrimental effects. The prognostic impact of uncorrected FMR prior to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains controversial.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2019 77 patients underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institution. 34 patients showed FMR ≥ 2 (MR-group), whereas 43 patients showed FMR < 2 (Control-group). Data was retrospectively analyzed. Primary composite endpoint comprised freedom from death, stroke, pump-thrombosis, major bleeding and right heart failure (RHF) after 1 year.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics, including the severity of left and right ventricular dysfunction, and periprocedural results were comparable. The overall survival during a mean follow up of 24.9 months was 55.9% in the MR-group versus 58.1% in the Control-group (p = 0.963), whereas 1-year event-free survival was 35.3% in the MR-group compared to 44.2% in the Control-group (p = 0.404). RHF within the first postoperative year occurred more frequently in the MR-group (35.3% vs. 11.6%; p = 0.017). Furthermore, RV function was significantly reduced in comparison to baseline values in the MR-group. 12 months after surgery, 74% of patients in the MR-group were classified as NYHA III in comparison to 24% of patients in the Control-group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative uncorrected FMR prior to LVAD implantation did not affect overall survival, nevertheless it was associated with an impaired RV function and increased incidence of right heart failure during follow-up. Furthermore, preoperative FMR ≥ 2 was associated with persistent symptoms of heart failure.

Bridge to transplantation from mechanical circulatory support: a narrative review

Objective

To highlight recent developments in the utilization of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies and to discuss trends in MCS use following the changes to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation system.

Background

MCS devices have played an increasingly important role in the treatment of heart failure patients. Over the past several years, technological advancements have led to new developments in MCS devices and expanding indications for MCS use. In October of 2018, the UNOS heart allocation policy was revised to prioritize higher-urgency patients, including those supported with temporary MCS devices. Since then, changes in trends of MCS utilization have been observed.

Methods

Articles from the PubMed database regarding the use of MCS devices as bridge-to-transplant strategies were reviewed.

Conclusions

Over the past decade, utilization of temporary MCS devices, which include the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous ventricular assist devices (pVADs), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), has become increasingly common. Recent advancements in MCS include the development of pVADs that can fully unload the left ventricle (LV) as well as devices designed to provide right-sided support. Technological advancements in durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have also led to improved outcomes both on the device and following heart transplantation. Following the 2018 UNOS heart allocation policy revision, the utilization of temporary MCS in advanced heart failure patients has further increased and the proportion of patients bridged directly from a temporary MCS device has exponentially risen. However, following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trends have reversed, with a decrease in the percentage of patients bridged from a temporary MCS device. As long-term data following the allocation policy revision becomes available, future studies should investigate how trends in MCS use for patients with advanced heart failure continue to evolve.

Driveline Features as Risk Factor for Infection in Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Meta-Analysis and Experimental Tests

Background: Risk factors for driveline infection (DLI) in patients with left ventricular assist devices are multifactorial. The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between mechanical driveline features and DLI occurrence. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted that included studies reporting DLI rates at 6 months after implantation of any of three contemporary devices (HVAD with Pellethane or Carbothane driveline, HeartMate II, and HeartMate 3). Further, outer driveline diameter measurements and ex-vivo experimental three-point bending and torsion tests were performed to compare the stiffness of the four different driveline types. Results: 21 studies with 5,393 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The mean weighted DLI rates ranged from 7.2% (HeartMate II) to 11.9% (HeartMate 3). The HeartMate II driveline had a significantly lower maximal bending force (Loadmax) (4.52 ± 0.19 N) compared to the Carbothane HVAD (8.50 ± 0.08 N), the HeartMate 3 (11.08 ± 0.3 N), and the Pellethane HVAD driveline (15.55 ± 0.14 N) (p < 0.001). The maximal torque (Torquemax) of the HeartMate II [41.44 (12.61) mNm] and the Carbothane HVAD driveline [46.06 (3.78) mNm] were significantly lower than Torquemax of the Pellethane HVAD [46.06 (3.78) mNm] and the HeartMate 3 [95.63 (26.60) mNm] driveline (p < 0.001). The driveline of the HeartMate 3 had the largest outer diameter [6.60 (0.58) mm]. A relationship between the mean weighted DLI rate and mechanical driveline features (Torquemax) was found, as the the HeartMate II driveline had the lowest Torquemax and lowest DLI rate, whereas the HeartMate 3 driveline had the highest Torquemax and highest DLI rate. Conclusions: Device-specific mechanical driveline features are an additional modifiable risk factor for DLI and may influence clinical outcomes of LVAD patients.

Propensity score-based analysis of long-term outcome of patients on HeartWare and HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support

Aims

Left ventricular assist device therapy has become the cornerstone in the treatment of end‐stage heart failure and is increasingly used as destination therapy next to bridge to transplant or recovery. HeartMate 3 (HM3) and HeartWare (HVAD) are centrifugal continuous flow devices implanted intrapericardially and most commonly used worldwide. No randomized controlled trials have been performed yet. Analysis based on large registries may be considered as the best alternative but has the disadvantage of different standard of care between centres and missing data. Bias is introduced, because the decision which device to use was not random, even more so because many centres use only one type of left ventricular assist device. Therefore, we performed a propensity score (PS)‐based analysis of long‐term clinical outcome of patients that received HM3 or HVAD in a single centre.

Methods and results

Between December 2010 and December 2019, 100 patients received HVAD and 81 patients HM3 as primary implantation at the University Medical Centre Utrecht. We performed PS matching with an extensive set of covariates, resulting in 112 matched patients with a median follow‐up of 28 months. After PS matching, survival was not significantly different (P = 0.21) but was better for HM3. The cumulative incidences for haemorrhagic stroke (P = 0.01) and pump thrombosis (P = 0.02) were significantly higher for HVAD patients. The cumulative incidences for major bleeding, ischaemic stroke, right heart failure, and driveline infection were not different between the groups. We found no interaction between the surgeon who performed the implantation and survival (P = 0.59, P = 0.78, and P = 0.89). Sensitivity analysis was performed, by PS matching without patients on preoperative temporary support resulting in 74 matched patients. This also resulted in a non‐significant difference in survival (P = 0.07). The PS‐adjusted Cox regression showed a worse but non‐significant (P = 0.10) survival for HVAD patients with hazard ratio 1.71 (95% confidence interval 0.91–3.24).

Conclusions

Survival was not significantly different between both groups after PS matching, but was better for HM3, with a significantly lower incidence of haemorrhagic stroke and pump thrombosis for HM3. These results need to be interpreted carefully, because matching may have introduced greater imbalance on unmeasured covariates. A multicentre approach of carefully selected centres is recommended to enlarge the number of matched patients.