HFA of the ESC position paper on the management of LVAD-supported patients for the non-LVAD specialist healthcare provider Part 3: at the hospital and discharge

Right heart failure with left ventricular assist devices: Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative management strategies. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner.

Anesthetic management for non-cardiac surgery in patients with left ventricular assist devices

With the growing number of patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and improved survival in this population, more patients with LVADs are presenting for various types of non-cardiac surgery. Therefore, anesthesiologists need to understand the physiology and adequately prepare for the perioperative management of this unique patient population. This review addresses perioperative considerations and intraoperative management for the safe and successful management of patients with an LVAD undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Understanding the basic physiology of preload dependency and afterload sensitivity in these patients is essential. The main considerations include a collaborative preoperative multidisciplinary approach, perioperative care aimed at optimizing the intravascular volume and right ventricular function, and maintaining the afterload within recommended ranges for optimal LVAD function.

Validity and reliability of the left ventricular assist device self-care behaviour scale

BACKGROUND

Adequate self-care behaviour is essential for patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to prevent complications, prolong life, and optimise quality of life. However, there were no valid and reliable measurements available to assess self-care behaviour among patients with LVAD. We have previously developed the 33-item LVAD self-care behaviour scale.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate psychometric properties of the 33-item LVAD self-care behaviour scale.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data on 127 patients with a LVAD in Israel, Japan, and the USA were analysed (mean age 51±14.3, 81% male). Exploratory factor analysis extracted three factors, and 13 items were excluded from the scale. Internal consistency assessed by Cronbach's alpha was acceptable for the total scale (α = 0.80) and the three subscales: Factor 1: Monitoring (α = 0.81), Factor 2: Heart failure self-care (α = 0.67), and Factor 3: LVAD self-care (α = 0.63). The 20-item version of the LVAD self-care behaviour scale had sufficient convergent validity with another scale that assessed self-care related to the driveline of LVAD (r = 0.47, p<0.001). Test-retest reliability was adequate (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

The 20-item version of the LVAD self-care behaviour scale showed adequate validity and reliability. The scale is ready for use in clinical practice and research. Additional testing might further optimise the scale.

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.

Ventricular Assist Devices: Challenges of the One-device Era

Heart failure (HF) is linked to to high mortality rates and recurrent hospitalisations despite medical and device-based achievements. The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has improved survival among patients with advanced HF. Significant progress has been achieved with the new generation of continuous-flow devices, particularly with the fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3. In June 2021, Medtronic announced the abrupt withdrawal of the HeartWare device from the market. This decision has introduced a new era in which the field of mechanical support for advanced HF patients is dominated by a single device - the HeartMate 3. The direct clinical and economic consequences of this change will necessitate new surgical considerations. Because of the expected need for HeartWare device replacement in small patients, new surgical techniques and device adaptation will be needed. The new single-device era will hopefully encourage scientists and engineers to create innovations in the advanced HF arena. Special considerations should be taken during the COVID-19 pandemic when treating patients with LVADs.

Heart failure during the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical, diagnostic, management, and organizational dilemmas

The coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) infection pandemic has affected the care of patients with heart failure (HF). Several consensus documents describe the appropriate diagnostic algorithm and treatment approach for patients with HF and associated COVID-19 infection. However, few questions about the mechanisms by which COVID can exacerbate HF in patients with high-risk (Stage B) or symptomatic HF (Stage C) remain unanswered. Therefore, the type of HF occurring during infection is poorly investigated. The diagnostic differentiation and management should be focused on the identification of the HF phenotype, underlying causes, and subsequent tailored therapy. In this framework, the relationship existing between COVID and onset of acute decompensated HF, isolated right HF, and cardiogenic shock is questioned, and the specific management is mainly based on local hospital organization rather than a standardized model. Similarly, some specific populations such as advanced HF, heart transplant, patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD), or valve disease remain under investigated. In this systematic review, we examine recent advances regarding the relationships between HF and COVID-19 pandemic with respect to epidemiology, pathogenetic mechanisms, and differential diagnosis. Also, according to the recent HF guidelines definition, we highlight different clinical profile identification, pointing out the main concerns in understudied HF populations.

Treatment of advanced heart failure

Background: The development of medical and device treatment of heart failure (HF) has improved the survival and quality of life in HF patients. However, not all HF patients respond well to these up-to-date HF treatments. We have termed these non-responders as advanced HF patients. The definition, diagnosis, and treatment of advanced HF are discussed in this review article.Current Concepts: After current guideline-directed treatments, advanced HF patients can experience aggravation and decompensation, usually resulting in hospitalization for the symptoms and volume control. Recurrent decompensation or hospitalization can cause a vicious cycle between the heart and other vital organs, such as the kidney and liver. Current and up-to-date guidelines recommend treatments, including heart transplant, left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and hospice care, for advanced HF. Given the limitation of heart transplant donors, LVAD can be used as a bridge to transplant, in addition to destination therapy. Updated LVAD system can reduce pump-related thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.Discussion and Conclusion: Current guidelines suggest early recognition of advanced HF and referral to advanced HF specialists. Despite advances in the treatments of advanced HF, unmet needs for further improving clinical outcomes and quality of life exist.