Model for end-stage liver disease predicts right ventricular failure in patients with left ventricular assist devices

The Predictive Value of the MELD Scores for In-Hospital Adverse Events in Normotensive Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolism

The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and the model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio (INR) (MELD-XI) scores, which reflect dysfunction of liver and kidneys, have been reported to be related to the prognosis of patients with right-sided "backward" failure. However, the relationship between the MELD/MELD-XI score and the in-hospital adverse events in pulmonary embolism (PE) patients was unknown. Normotensive PE patients were retrospectively enrolled at China-Japan friendship hospital from January 2017 to February 2020. The primary outcome was defined as death and clinical deterioration during hospitalization. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to explore the association between the MELD and MELD-XI scores for in-hospital adverse events. We also compared the accuracy of the MELD, MELD-XI, and the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) score using the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curve and corresponding areas under the curve (AUC). A total of 222 PE patients were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis showed that the MELD score was independently associated with in-hospital adverse events (odds ratio = 1.115, 95% confidential interval = 1.022-1.217, P = .014). The MELD score has an AUC of 0.731 and was better than PESI (AUC of 0.629) in predicting in-hospital adverse events. Among PE patients with normal blood pressure on admission, the MELD score was associated with increased in-hospital adverse events.

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Right and left ventricular assist devices are an option for bridge to heart transplant

Background

Patients with a left ventricular assist device with right ventricular failure are prioritized on the heart transplant waitlist; however, their post-transplant survival is less well characterized. We aimed to determine whether pretransplant right ventricular failure affects postoperative survival in patients with a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of the 2005-2018 Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing registry for candidates aged 18 years or more waitlisted for first-time isolated heart transplantation after left ventricular assist device implantation. Candidates were stratified on the basis of having right ventricular failure, defined as the need for right ventricular assist device or intravenous inotropes. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were compared among the 3 groups, and post-transplant survival was assessed.

Results

Our cohort included 5605 candidates who met inclusion criteria, including 450 patients with right ventricular failure, 344 patients with a left ventricular assist device and intravenous inotropes as a bridge to transplant, 106 patients with a left ventricular assist device and right ventricular assist device, and 5155 patients with a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant without the need for right side support. Compared with patients without right ventricular failure, patients with a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant with right ventricular failure were younger (median age 51 years, 55 vs 56 years, P < .001) and waited less time for organs (median 51 days, 93.5 vs 125 days, P < .001). These patients also had longer post-transplant length of stay (median 18 days, 20 vs 16 days, P < .001). Right ventricular failure was not associated with decreased post-transplant long-term survival on unadjusted Kaplan–Meier analysis (P = .18). Neither preoperative right ventricular assist device nor intravenous inotropes independently predicted worse survival on multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis. However, pretransplant liver dysfunction (total bilirubin >2) was an independent predictor of worse survival (hazard ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.17; P < .001), specifically in the left ventricular assist device group and not in the left ventricular assist device + right ventricular assist device/intravenous inotropes group.

Conclusions

Patients with biventricular failure are prioritized on the waiting list, because their critical pretransplant condition has limited impact on their post-transplant survival (short-term effect only); thus, surgeons should be confident to perform transplantation in these severely ill patients. Because liver dysfunction (a surrogate marker of right ventricular failure) was found to affect long-term survival in patients with a left ventricular assist device, surgeons should be encouraged to perform transplantation in these severely ill patients after a recipient's optimization by inotropes or a right ventricular assist device because even when the bilirubin level is elevated in these patients (treated with right ventricular assist device/inotropes), their long-term survival is not affected. Future studies should assess recipients' optimization before organ acceptance to improve long-term survival.

Impact of preoperative liver dysfunction on outcomes in patients with left ventricular assist devices

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the impact of preoperative liver function on early and 1-year postoperative outcomes in patients supported with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and subsequent evolution of liver function markers.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentre cohort study was conducted, including all patients undergoing continuous-flow LVAD implantation. The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was used to define liver dysfunction.

RESULTS

Overall, 290 patients with an LVAD [78% HeartMate II, 15% HVAD and 7% HeartMate 3, mean age 55 (18), 76% men] were included. Over 40 000 measurements of liver function markers were collected over a 1-year period. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for the 1-year mortality rate identified the optimal cut-off value of 12.6 for the MELD score. Therefore, the cohort was dichotomized into patients with an MELD score of less than or greater than 12.6. The early (90-day) survival rates in patients with and without liver dysfunction were 76% and 91% (P = 0.002) and 65% and 90% at 1 year, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with preoperative liver dysfunction had more embolic events and more re-explorations. At the 1-year follow-up, liver function markers showed an overall improvement in the majority of patients, with or without pre-LVAD liver dysfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative liver dysfunction is associated with higher early 90-day and 1-year mortality rates after LVAD implantation. Furthermore, liver function improved in both patient groups. It has become imperative to optimize the selection criteria for possible LVAD candidates, since those who survive the first year show excellent recovery of their liver markers.

Outcome of right ventricular assist device implantation following left ventricular assist device implantation: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives:

The main aim was a systematic evaluation of the current evidence on outcomes for patients undergoing right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

Methods:

This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019130131). Reports evaluating in-hospital as well as follow-up outcome in LVAD and LVAD/RVAD implantation were identified through Ovid Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE. The primary endpoint was mortality at the hospital stay and at follow-up. Pooled incidence of defined endpoints was calculated by using random effects models.

Results:

A total of 35 retrospective studies that included 3260 patients were analyzed. 30 days mortality was in favour of isolated LVAD implantation 6.74% (1.98–11.5%) versus 31.9% (19.78–44.02%) p = 0.001 in LVAD with temporary need for RVAD. During the hospital stay the incidence of major bleeding was 18.7% (18.2–19.4%) versus 40.0% (36.3–48.8%) and stroke rate was 5.6% (5.4–5.8%) versus 20.9% (16.8–28.3%) and was in favour of isolated LVAD implantation. Mortality reported at short-term as well at long-term was 19.66% (CI 15.73–23.59%) and 33.90% (CI 8.84–59.96%) in LVAD respectively versus 45.35% (CI 35.31–55.4%) p ⩽ 0.001 and 48.23% (CI 16.01–80.45%) p = 0.686 in LVAD/RVAD group respectively.

Conclusion:

Implantation of a temporary RVAD is allied with a worse outcome during the primary hospitalization and at follow-up. Compared to isolated LVAD support, biventricular mechanical circulatory support leads to an elevated mortality and higher incidence of adverse events such as bleeding and stroke.

Assessing in-hospital cardiovascular, thrombotic and bleeding outcomes in patients with chronic liver disease undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation

INTRODUCTION

Chronic liver disease (CLD) and advanced heart failure (HF) often co-exist with coagulopathy and hematologic abnormalities being major concerns in this cohort. Perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing LVAD implantation can be affected by coagulopathy, associated with a higher International Normalized Ratio (INR) and cytopenias, as well as pre-operative use of antiplatelet therapy and systemic anticoagulation. Our study is aimed at evaluating the in-hospital mortality and clinical outcomes of patients with CLD who underwent LVAD implantation compared to patients who underwent LVAD implantation without CLD.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample Database was queried from 2012 to 2017 for relevant International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 procedural and diagnostic codes. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared in patients with chronic liver disease and those without, who underwent LVAD implantation.

RESULTS

A total of 22,955 patients underwent LVAD implantation, 2200 of which had CLD. There was no difference in mean age between those with and without CLD (52.8 ± 14.2 vs. 55.7 ± 15.4 years old, p < 0.001), and 23.7% of patients were female. The proportion of patients with CLD undergoing LVAD implantation trended downward between 2012 and 2017 (average annual growth rate: "-14.8%"). In-hospital post-LVAD outcomes revealed: all-cause inpatient mortality (14.8% vs. 11.1%), major bleeding (34.3% vs. 30.2%), transfusion of platelets (18.0% vs. 14.0%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (1.6% vs. 0.7%) and hospital length of stay were greater in patients with CLD (p < 0.001 for all values). LVAD thrombosis (6.6% vs. 9.4%) and postoperative ischemic stroke (3.4% vs. 6.1%) occurred less in patients with CLD (p < 0.001 for both). There were no statistically significant differences in occurrence of post-LVAD gastrointestinal bleeding and transfusion of fresh frozen plasma or packed red blood cells (p > 0.05 for all). Using a multivariate logistic regression model to adjust for confounding factors, CLD was predictive of increased in-hospital all-cause mortality in patients undergoing LVAD implantation (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.06 to 1.56, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

LVAD implantation in patients with chronic liver disease was associated with increased mortality and post-LVAD major bleeding with increased utilization of platelet products yet comparable thrombotic complications. Further studies are needed to evaluate the balance and pathophysiology of bleeding risks when compared to thrombosis, as well as predictors in patients with chronic liver disease.

MELD and MELD XI Scores as Predictors of Mortality After Pericardiectomy for Constrictive Pericarditis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between the preoperative model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and MELD-XI (exclude international normalized ratio) score and outcomes in patients undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients >18 years of age undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis between January 1, 2007, and October 12, 2017, were analyzed with data for MELD and MELD-XI score calculation within 30 days preoperatively. The association between the MELD and MELD-XI scoring systems and risk of postoperative outcomes was assessed in regression models adjusting for relevant covariates. The primary outcome was operative mortality (death within 90 days or in hospital). Secondary outcomes included various measures of postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 175 and 226 patients had data for MELD/MELD-XI, respectively. Ninety-day mortality was 8.7%. When stratified into tertiles of MELD-XI, the unadjusted risk of 90-day mortality was 2.7%, 8.2%, and 16.0%, respectively. In Cox regression models fitted for MELD-XI and MELD, higher scores associated with increased risk of mortality (P<.001 for both). In secondary multivariable analyses, both MELD-XI and MELD were associated with increased incidence of renal failure and greater levels of chest-tube output and transfusion, whereas MELD-XI was additionally associated with prolonged intubation and extended intensive care unit and hospital stays.

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis, MELD-XI and MELD were associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Although the simpler MELD-XI score generally performed as well or better than MELD as a correlate of various outcomes, both scores can serve as a simple yet robust risk stratification tool for patients undergoing pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis.

Prospective evaluation of ventricular assist device risk scores' capacity to predict cardiopulmonary exercise parameters

OBJECTIVES

Risk scores for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy are known to predict morbidity and adverse events in addition to mortality. This study evaluates the capacity of popular LVAD risk scores to predict cardiopulmonary exercise parameters.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing continuous flow LVAD implantation were prospectively followed. Five risk scores were calculated before implantation: Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD excluding international normalized ratio (MELD-XI), MELD including sodium (MELD-Na), HeartMate2 Risk Score (HMRS) and Destination Therapy Risk Score (DTRS). Cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs) were performed before and after implantation; peak oxygen consumption (vO2max), the lowest ventilation to carbon dioxide output ratio (vE/vCO2) and exercise time were measured.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were implanted during the study period; of these, 30 patients completed preimplantation and postimplantation CPETs (CPET cohort). The mean preimplantation and postimplantation CPET dates were 29 ± 10 days before and 109 ± 5 days following implantation. CPET parameters significantly improved after implantation (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, MELD, MELD-XI, MELD-Na and HMRS independently predicted both preimplantation and postimplantation vE/vCO2, while MELD-Na and HMRS were also independent predictors of preimplantation and postimplantation vO2max, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Four preimplantation LVAD risk scores (HMRS, MELD, MELD-Na and MELD-XI) independently predict important cardiopulmonary exercise parameters such as vE/vCO2 and vO2 max in LVAD therapy. Out of these 4 risk scores, MELD-Na and HMRS appear to be the best predictors of preimplantation and postimplantation CPET parameters, respectively.

Determinants and Outcomes of Vasoplegia Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

BACKGROUND

Vasoplegia is associated with adverse outcomes following cardiac surgery; however, its impact following left ventricular assist device implantation is largely unexplored.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 252 consecutive patients receiving a left ventricular assist device, vasoplegia was defined as the occurrence of normal cardiac function and index but with the need for intravenous vasopressors within 48 hours following surgery for >24 hours to maintain a mean arterial pressure >70 mm Hg. We further categorized vasoplegia as none; mild, requiring 1 vasopressor (vasopressin, norepinephrine, or high-dose epinephrine [>5 μg/min]); or moderate to severe, requiring ≥2 vasopressors. Predictors of vasoplegia severity were determined using a cumulative logit (ordinal logistic regression) model, and 1-year mortality was evaluated using competing-risks survival analysis. In total, 67 (26.6%) patients developed mild vasoplegia and 57 (22.6%) developed moderate to severe vasoplegia. The multivariable model for vasoplegia severity utilized preoperative Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile, central venous pressure, systolic blood pressure, and intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass time, which yielded an area under the curve of 0.76. Although no significant differences were noted in stroke or pump thrombosis rates (P=0.87 and P=0.66, respectively), respiratory failure and major bleeding increased with vasoplegia severity (P<0.01). Those with moderate to severe vasoplegia had a significantly higher risk of mortality than those without vasoplegia (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-4.18; P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Vasoplegia is predictive of unfavorable outcomes, including mortality. Risk factors for future research include preoperative INTERMACS profile, central venous pressure, systolic blood pressure, and intraoperative cardiopulmonary bypass time.

Liver disease and heart failure: Back and forth

In their clinical practice, physicians can face heart diseases (chronic or acute heart failure) affecting the liver and liver diseases affecting the heart. Systemic diseases can also affect both heart and liver. Therefore, it is crucial in clinical practice to identify complex interactions between heart and liver, in order to provide the best treatment for both. In this review, we sought to summarize principal evidence explaining the mechanisms and supporting the existence of this complicate cross-talk between heart and liver. Hepatic involvement after heart failure, its pathophysiology, clinical presentation (congestive and ischemic hepatopathy), laboratory and echocardiographic prognostic markers are discussed; likewise, hepatic diseases influencing cardiac function (cirrhotic cardiomyopathy). Several clinical conditions (congenital, metabolic and infectious causes) possibly affecting simultaneously liver and heart have been also discussed. Cardiovascular drug therapy may present important side effects on the liver and hepato-biliary drug therapy on heart and vessels; post-transplantation immunosuppressive drugs may show reciprocal cardio-hepatotoxicity. A heart-liver axis is drafted by inflammatory reactants from the heart and the liver, and liver acts a source of energy substrates for the heart.

Should Patients with Hepatic Fibrosis Undergo LVAD Implantation: A Comparative Analysis

The purpose of our study was to evaluate outcomes in patients with hepatic fibrosis at the time of LVAD implantation. There were five (2.1%) patients with preoperative hepatic fibrosis with a mean age of 51.2 ± 16.8 years. Survival at 180 days was significantly reduced in patients with hepatic fibrosis, 40.0% vs. 88.0%; p = 0.001. Hepatic fibrosis was a significant independent predictor of mortality in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.27, p = 0.036).