Symptomatic Relief: Left Ventricular Assist Devices Versus Resynchronization Therapy

A longitudinal comparison of health-related quality of life in rural and urban recipients of left ventricular assist devices

Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are a common treatment for advanced heart failure (HF) to improve ventricular function, symptoms, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Many LVAD recipients travel long distances from rural areas for LVAD implantation and follow-up care. Individuals with HF in rural settings who have not undergone LVAD implantation have reported poor HRQOL. However, to date, no studies have compared HF-specific or generic HRQOL in rural and urban LVAD recipients. The purpose of this study was to compare generic and HF-specific HRQOL longitudinally from preimplantation to 1-, 3-, and 6- months postimplant in a cohort of rural and urban LVAD recipients (n = 95; rural n = 32 and urban n = 63). We measured generic HRQOL using the European Quality of Life Visual Analog Scale and HF-specific HRQOL with the quality of life domain of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Latent growth curve modeling identified two phases of change in generic and HF-specific HRQOL: the initial response to LVAD between preimplantation and 1-month postimplant and the subsequent change between 1- and 6-months postimplant. Comparable improvements in generic HRQOL were noted in rural and urban LVAD recipients during both phases of change. Urban LVAD recipients had greater initial improvements in HF-specific HRQOL (KCCQ) compared with rural recipients (13.0 ± 5.6, p = .02), but subsequent improvements were similar among rural and urban recipients. Ongoing assessment of generic and HF-specific HRQOL is necessary during LVAD therapy.

Computational Prediction of the Combined Effect of CRT and LVAD on Cardiac Electromechanical Delay in LBBB and RBBB

Two case reports showed that the combination of CRT and LVAD benefits the end-stage heart failure patients with prolonged QRS interval significantly. In one of the reports, the patient had the LVAD removed due to the recovery of the heart function. However, the quantification of the combined devices has yet to be conducted. This study aimed at computationally predicting the effects of CRT-only or combined with LVAD on electromechanical behaviour in the failing ventricle with left bundle branch blocked (LBBB) and right bundle branch blocked (RBBB) conditions. The subjects are normal sinus rhythm, LBBB, RBBB, LBBB with CRT-only, RBBB with CRT-only, LBBB with CRT + LVAD, and RBBB with CRT + LVAD. The results showed that the CRT-only shortened the total electrical activation time (EAT) in the LBBB and RBBB conditions by 20.2% and 17.1%, respectively. The CRT-only reduced the total mechanical activation time (MAT) and electromechanical delay (EMD) of the ventricle under LBBB by 21.3% and 10.1%, respectively. Furthermore, the CRT-only reduced the contractile adenosine triphosphate (ATP) consumption by 5%, increased left ventricular (LV) pressure by 6%, and enhanced cardiac output (CO) by 0.2 L/min under LBBB condition. However, CRT-only barely affects the ventricle under RBBB condition. Under the LBBB condition, CRT + LVAD increased LV pressure and CO by 10.5% and by 0.9 L/min, respectively. CRT + LVAD reduced ATP consumption by 15%, shortened the MAT by 23.4%, and shortened the EMD by 15.2%. In conclusion, we computationally predicted and quantified that the CRT + LVAD implementation is superior to CRT-only implementation particularly in HF with LBBB condition.