Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients (ROADMAP)

Mechanical Circulatory Support: Heart Failure Therapy “in Motion”

Because the first generation of pulsatile-flow devices was primarily used to bridge the sickest patients to transplantation (bridge-to-transplant therapy), the current generation of continuous-flow ventricular assist devices qualifies for destination therapy for patients with advanced heart failure who are ineligible for transplantation. The first-generation devices were associated with frequent adverse events, limited mechanical durability, and patient discomfort due device size. In contrast, second-generation continuous-flow devices are smaller, more quiet, and durable, thus resulting in less complications and significantly improved survival rates. Heart transplantation remains an option for a limited number of patients only, and this fact has also triggered the discussion about the optimal timing for device implantation. The increasing use of continuous-flow devices has resulted in new challenges, such as adverse events during long-term support, and high hospital readmission rates. In addition, there are a number of device-related complications including mechanical problems such as device thrombosis, percutaneous driveline damage, as well as conditions such as hemolysis, infection, and cerebrovascular accidents. This review provides an overview of the evolution of mechanical circulatory support systems from bridge to transplantation to destination therapy including technological advances and clinical improvements in long-term patient survival and quality of life. In addition, recent changes in device implant strategies and current trials are reviewed and discussed. A brief glimpse into the future of mechanical circulatory support therapy will summarize the innovations that may soon enter clinical practice.

[Rise of the machines? Left ventricular assist devices for treatment of severe heart failure]

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) as a treatment for severe heart failure has gained momentum in recent years. Even at this stage the number of worldwide LVAD implantations far exceeds the volume of heart transplantations in view of the chronic shortage of donor organs. Third generation continuous flow assist devices have helped to improve survival, quality of life and symptom burden of heart failure patients in comparison to a regimen of optimal medication management. Alongside bridging to transplantation, destination therapy has become an established strategy of LVAD implantation. A careful patient selection process is crucial for a good clinical outcome after device implantation and risk assessment for postoperative right ventricular failure is of particular importance in this context. The rate of hospitalization during LVAD support is still high, despite the step-wise attempts to widen the indications to less severely ill heart failure patients. An effective perioperative and postoperative management will help to lower the incidence of complications (e.g. bleeding, infections, thromboembolic events and right ventricular failure) and to improve the encouraging results of mechanical circulatory support.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Rapidly Evolving Alternative to Transplant

Left ventricular assist devices are becoming an increasingly prevalent therapy for patients with Stage D heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Technological advances have improved the durability of these devices and have significantly lengthened survival in these patients. Quality of life is also improved, although adverse events related to device therapy remain common. Nevertheless, with the continuing organ donor shortage for cardiac transplantation, left ventricular assist devices are frequently serving as a substitute for transplant, particularly in the elderly patient.