Impact of bridge-to-bridge strategies from paracorporeal to implantable left ventricular assist devices on the pre-heart transplant outcome: A single-center analysis of 134 cases

Clinical Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Pump Infection

Few studies have focused on the clinical outcomes and risk factors of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) pump infection, and no standard treatment for LVAD pump infection has been established. Therefore, we used a therapeutic flowchart to manage LVAD pump infections. We retrospectively evaluated 220 patients who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation between January 2005 and March 2021 at Osaka University, Japan. First, we performed wound debridement, negative-pressure wound therapy, antibiotic treatment, and omental flap transposition. Subsequently, we administered conservative treatment, scheduled implantable LVAD exchange, or emergent removal of the implantable LVAD and exchange for extracorporeal LVAD or percutaneous LVAD (IMPELLA). Pump infections occurred in 32 patients. The survival rates of patients with pump infections during LVAD support were 93%, 74%, and 61% at 180 days, 1 year, and 2 years after LVAD pump infection, respectively. Fifteen patients underwent successful heart transplantation. Bridge-to-bridge surgery, preoperative use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or percutaneous LVAD, high lactate dehydrogenase levels, and driveline infection were significantly associated with pump infection. Our study reveals that poor preoperative condition and driveline infection were significant risk factors for LVAD pump infection.

Bridge from central extracorporeal life support is a risk factor of cerebrovascular accidents after durable left ventricular assist device implantation

A bridging strategy from extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is effective in salvage and a bridge to recovery or to a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for acute refractory heart failure. However, the correlation of this strategy with adverse events after durable LVAD implantation has not been fully investigated. This study enrolled 158 consecutive patients who had either the HeartMate II or HeartMate 3 and were implanted for bridge-to-transplantation. These devices were implanted as the primary mechanical support device in 115 patients, whereas the remaining 43 underwent LVAD implantation as the bridge from central ECLS. The primary study endpoint was all-cause mortality and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) after durable LVAD implantation, and the secondary endpoints were adverse events. Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups. In contrast, the probability of CVAs was significantly greater in the bridge group than in the primary group (probability of CVAs, P = 0.002; log-rank test). In Cox multivariate logistic regression analysis, a bridge from central ECLS was an independent predictive factor of CVAs (hazard ratio 4.27, 95% confidence interval 1.43-12.8; P = 0.0095). Patients who are bridged from central ECLS are more frequently complicated by CVAs compared with those who undergo primary implantation of a durable LVAD, but survival is not significantly different between the two groups. A bridge from central ECLS is an independent predictive factor of CVAs post-implantation of an LVAD.