Biventricular Support With Intracorporeal, Continuous Flow, Centrifugal Ventricular Assist Devices

Total artificial heart implantation as a bridge to transplantation in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Although the SynCardia total artificial heart (SynCardia Systems, LLC) was approved for use as a bridge to transplantation in 2004 in the United States, most centers do not adopt the total artificial heart as a standard bridging strategy for patients with biventricular failure. This study was designed to characterize the current use and outcomes of patients placed on total artificial heart support.

METHODS

The United Network of Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Research File was queried to identify total artificial heart implantation in the United States between 2005 and 2018. Multivariable Cox regression models were used for risk prediction.

RESULTS

A total of 471 patients (mean age, 49 years; standard deviation, 13 years; 88% were male) underwent total artificial heart implantation. Of 161 transplant centers, 11 centers had cumulative volume of 10 or more implants. The 6-month cumulative incidence of mortality on the total artificial heart was 24.6%. The 6-month cumulative incidence of transplant was 49.0%. The 1-year mortality post-transplantation was 20.0%. Cumulative center volume less than 10 implants was predictive of both mortality on the total artificial heart (hazard ratio, 2.2, 95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.1, P < .001) and post-transplant mortality after a total artificial heart bridge (hazard ratio, 1.5, 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.2, P = .039).

CONCLUSIONS

Total artificial heart use is low, but the total artificial heart can be an option for biventricular bridge to transplant with acceptable bridge to transplant and post-transplant survival, especially in higher-volume centers. The observation of inferior outcomes in lower-volume centers raises questions as to whether targeted training, center certifications, and minimum volume requirements could improve outcomes for patients requiring the total artificial heart.

Heart Transplant Outcomes After Total Artificial Heart

BACKGROUND

We sought to compare heart transplant (HTX) outcomes from patients with a total artificial heart (TAH), biventricular assist device (BiVAD), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) as a bridge to transplant (BTT). Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS)-Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) created a dataset with TAH or durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) who reached HTX between 2006 and 2015.

METHODS

The retrospective analysis compared TAH outcomes with those with a BiVAD or LVAD before HTX. The primary outcome was posttransplant survival at 1, 36, and 60 months. Secondary outcomes included simultaneous heart-kidney transplants, donor characteristics, and mortality risk factors. INTERMACS-SRTR cohort had, at the time of HTX, 2762 patients with LVAD; 205 BiVAD (139 durable and 66 temporary RVAD); 176 TAH (6 prior HeartMate II).

RESULTS

Sixty months after HTX, mortality rates were 16.5% in the total group: LVAD 15.2%, BiVAD 22.4%, and TAH 29%. Survival differed between the LVAD, the TAH, and BiVAD but not between the BiVAD and TAH groups. One-year survival and complication rates were similar across groups-there was no difference in survival by donor age in the overall cohort. There was a difference in TTD based on recipient age in the LVAD group but not in BiVAD or TAH groups. Occurrence of HTX-kidney and post-transplant dialysis were higher in the TAH versus LVAD and BiVAD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The TAH is an efficacious BTT. Refinements in technology and patient selection may improve outcomes.

Durable biventricular assist device support for 1212 days as a bridge to heart transplantation

Experience with durable biventricular assist devices (BiVADs) as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) is limited, particularly in women. A 41-year-old woman with biventricular failure complicated by cardiogenic shock underwent durable concurrent BiVAD implantation and was supported for 1212 days as a bridge to HTx. During BiVAD support, she experienced bacteremia (day 1030 of support), appropriately managed with intravenous antibiotics. She is alive and well, 1479 days from BiVAD implantation and 267 days from orthotopic HTx. Strategies contributing to successful prolonged support include concurrent BiVAD implantation, aggressive cardiac rehabilitation, diet management for weight loss and frequent interval surveillance.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2022 Annual Report: Focus on the 2018 Heart Transplant Allocation System

The 13th annual report from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) highlights outcomes for 27,314 patients receiving continuous-flow durable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) during the last decade (2012-2021). In 2021, 2464 primary LVADs were implanted, representing a 23.5% reduction in the annual volume compared with peak implantation in 2019 and an ongoing trend from the prior year. This decline is likely a reflection of the untoward effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the change in the United States heart transplant allocation system in 2018. The last several years have been characterized by a shift in device indication and type, with 81.1% of patients now implanted as destination therapy and 92.7% receiving an LVAD with full magnetic levitation in 2021. However, despite an older, more ill population being increasingly supported preimplant with temporary circulatory devices in the recent (2017-2021) vs prior (2012-2016) eras, the 1- and 5-year survival continues to improve, at 83.0% and 51.9%, respectively. The adverse events profile has also improved, with a significant reduction in stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hospital readmissions. Finally, we examined the impact of the change in the heart transplant allocation system in 2018 on LVAD candidacy, implant strategy, and outcomes. In the competing-outcomes analysis, the proportion of transplant-eligible patients receiving a transplant has declined from 56.5% to 46.0% at 3 years, whereas the proportion remaining alive with ongoing support has improved from 24.1% to 38.1% at 3 years, underscoring the durability of the currently available technology.

Biventricular assist devices and total artificial heart: Strategies and outcomes

In contrast to the advanced development of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy for advanced heart failure, the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with biventricular assist device (BVAD) and total artificial heart (TAH) options remain challenging. The treatment strategy of BVAD and TAH therapy largely depends on the support duration. For example, an extracorporeal centrifugal pump, typically referred to as a temporary surgical extracorporeal right ventricular assist device, is implanted for the short term with acute right ventricular failure following LVAD implantation. Meanwhile, off-label use of a durable implantable LVAD is a strategy for long-term right ventricular support. Hence, this review focuses on the current treatment strategies and clinical outcomes based on each ventricle support duration. In addition, the issue of heart failure post-heart transplantation (post-HT) is explored. We will discuss MCS therapy options for post-HT recipients.

Bridging patients in cardiogenic shock with a paracorporeal pulsatile biventricular assist device to heart transplantation-a single-centre experience

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the outcome of patients in cardiogenic shock receiving a paracorporeal pulsatile biventricular assist device as a bridge to transplantation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective single-centre analysis of all patients who received a Berlin Heart Excor® at our institution between 2004 and 2019.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (90 adults, 7 paediatric) were analysed. Eighty-four patients were in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support level 1 (80 adults, 4 paediatric). Diagnoses were dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 41), ischaemic cardiomyopathy (n = 17) or myocardial infarction (n = 4), myocarditis (n = 15), restrictive cardiomyopathy (n = 2), graft failure after heart transplant (n = 7), postcardiotomy heart failure (n = 5), postpartum cardiomyopathy (n = 3), congenital heart disease (n = 1), valvular cardiomyopathy (n = 1) and toxic cardiomyopathy (n = 1). All patients were in biventricular heart failure and had secondary organ dysfunction. The mean duration of support was 63 days (0-487 days). There was a significant decrease in creatinine values after assist device implantation (from 1.83 ± 0.79 to 1.12 ± 0.67 mg/dl, P = 0.001) as well as a decrease in bilirubin values (from 3.94 ± 4.58 to 2.65 ± 3.61 mg/dl, P = 0.084). Cerebral stroke occurred in 16 patients, bleeding in 15 and infection in 13 patients. Forty-eight patients died on support, while 49 patients could be successfully bridged to transplantation. Thirty-day survival and 1-year survival were 70.1% and 41.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A pulsatile biventricular assist device is a reasonable therapeutic option in cardiogenic shock, when immediate high cardiac output is necessary to rescue the already impaired kidney and liver function of the patient.

Contemporary Mechanical Circulatory Support with Continuous Flow Biventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review

As the incidence of heart failure increases, so too has that of biventricular failure. While transplantation remains the gold standard therapy for end-stage heart failure, the limited organ supply has increased the need for durable mechanical circulatory support. We therefore sought to conduct a systematic review of continuous flow ventricular assist devices in a biventricular configuration (CF-BiVAD). An electronic search of PubMed and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases was performed using the keyword "BIVAD". Studies were reviewed to identify discrete variables, including implant indication, INTERMACs profile, timing of implant, mean age and BMI, and the anticoagulation/antiplatelet regimens employed post implant. Outcomes of interest included mortality and the incidence of thrombus, bleeding, infection, stroke and renal failure. A total of 25 studies met inclusion criteria. No single variable was consistently reported, with only four studies reporting all five adverse effects. INTERMACs profile at implant and anticoagulation/antiplatelet regimen were reported in less than 50% of studies. Of those reporting mortality, there was a wide range of follow-up, from less than six months to >10 years, and the survival rate was similarly widely variable. Additionally, more than 50% of studies failed to isolate CF-BiVAD from alternative means of biventricular support, such as temporary support platforms, TAH, and pulsatile VADs. Therefore high-quality quantitative analysis is not possible. In summary, CF-BiVAD literature has a very heterogenous reporting of data. Standard reporting criteria may allow for future analyses to determine which patient characteristics portend a favorable outcome with CF-BiVAD implantation.

Contemporary outcomes of continuous-flow biventricular assist devices

Background

Significant right ventricular failure (RVF) complicating left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement has been reported at 10-30%. Although primarily indicated for left ventricular failure, ventricular assist devices (VADs) have become utilized in a biventricular setup to combat right ventricular failure (RVF) following LVAD implantation. With the advent of continuous-flow LVADs (CF-LVADs) superseding their pulsatile predecessors, the shift towards CF-biventricular assist devices (CF-BiVADs) come with the prospect of improved outcomes over previous pulsatile BiVADs. We aim to review the literature and determine the outcomes of CF-BiVAD recipients.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to determine the outcomes of CF-BiVADs. Pre-operative demographics and device configuration data was collected. Primary outcomes evaluated were short-term survival, long-term survival, duration of support, and survival to transplant. Secondary outcomes evaluated included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (ICU-LOS and HLOS, respectively), pump thrombosis, pump exchange. Median and interquartile range was reported where appropriate. A major limitation was the likely overlap of cohorts across publications, which may have contributed to some selection bias.

Results

Of 1,282 screened, 12 publications were evaluated. Sample size ranged from 4 to 93 CF-BiVAD recipients, and follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months. Mean age ranged from 34 to 52 years old. Forty-five percent of CF-BiVADs had right atrial (RA-) inflow cannulation, with the remaining being right ventricular (RV). Thirty-day survival was a median of 90% (IQR 82-97.8%) and 12-month survival was a median of 58.5% (IQR 47.5-62%). Where reported, rate of pump thrombosis (predominantly the right VAD) was a median of 31% (IQR 14-36%), although pump exchange was only 9% (IQR 1.5-12.5%).

Conclusions

RVF post-LVAD implantation is a high morbidity and mortality complication. There is no on-label continuous-flow RVAD currently available. Thus, the modifications of LVADs for right ventricular support to combat pump thrombosis has resulted in various techniques. BiVAD recipients are predominantly transplant candidates, and complications of pump thrombosis and driveline infection whilst on wait-list are of great consequence. This study demonstrates the need for an on-label CF-BiVAD.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2020 Annual Report

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (Intermacs) 2020 Annual Report reviews outcomes on 25,551 patients undergoing primary isolated continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation between 2010 and 2019. In 2019, 3198 primary LVADs were implanted, which is the highest annual volume in Intermacs history. Compared with the previous era (2010-2014), patients who received an LVAD in the most recent era (2015-2019) were more likely to be African American (26.8% vs 22.9%, P < .0001) and more likely to be bridged to durable LVAD with temporary mechanical support devices (36.8% vs 26.0%, P < .0001). In 2019, 50% of patients were INTERMACS Profile 1 or 2 before durable LVAD, and 73% received an LVAD as destination therapy. Magnetic levitation technology has become the predominant design, accounting for 77% of devices in 2019. The 1- and 2-year survival in the most recent era has improved compared with 2010 to 2014 (82.3% and 73.1% vs 80.5% and 69.1%, respectively; P < .0001). Major bleeding and infection continue to be the leading adverse events. Incident stroke has declined in the current era to 12.7% at 1 year. STS-Intermacs research publications are highlighted, and the new quality initiatives are introduced.

International experience using a durable, centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device for biventricular support

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation is limited by the scarcity of suitable donors. Patients with advanced biventricular failure may require biventricular support to provide optimal cardiac output and end-organ perfusion. We highlight the outcomes of using the HeartWare HVAD System (HVAD) in a biventricular configuration.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients implanted with HVAD as a biventricular assist device (BiVAD) between 2009 and 2017 at 12 participating centers. When used as a right ventricular assist device (VAD) (RVAD), the HVAD can be attached to the right ventricle (RV) or the right atrium (RA). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were calculated comparing the 2 RVAD implant locations. Comparisons were also made between the timing of RVAD implantation (primary vs staged) on adverse event (AE) profiles and survival.

RESULTS

Among the 93 patients who were implanted with a HVAD BiVAD, Kaplan-Meier survivals at 1-year and 2-year were 56% and 47%, respectively. Survival was independent of the location of the HVAD RVAD implant or whether there was an interval between left VAD and RVAD implantation. The most common AEs were bleeding (35.5%), infection (25.8%), and respiratory failure (20.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study illustrated similar survival in patients receiving a primary or staged HVAD BiVAD implant at 1 year and 2 years. This study also established that the locations of the RVAD implant (RV or RA) result in similar AE profiles.

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device.