Right Ventricular Failure After Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement—The Beginning of the End or Just Another Challenge?

Left Ventricular Assist Device Emergencies: Diagnosis and Management

Durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are a virtually limitless advanced therapy option for an increasingly growing population of patients with end-stage advanced heart failure. As of 2019, 30% to 40% of all patients diagnosed with heart failure were categorized as New York Heart Association class III or IV. In 2018 more than 3.2 million office visits and 1.4 million emergency department visits carried a primary diagnosis of heart failure. Given the rapid growth of the LVAD population, facility in the diagnosis and management of common perioperative and outpatient LVAD emergencies has become of paramount importance in a variety of clinical settings.

Postcardiotomy Shock Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Perioperative Diagnosis and Management

Postcardiotomy shock (PCS) is generally described as the inability to separate from cardiopulmonary bypass due to ineffective cardiac output after cardiotomy, which is caused by a primary cardiac disorder, resulting in inadequate tissue perfusion. Postcardiotomy shock occurs in 0.5% to 1.5% of contemporary cardiac surgery cases, and is accompanied by an in-hospital mortality of approximately 67%. In the last 2 decades, the incidence of PCS has increased, likely due to the increased age and baseline morbidity of patients requiring cardiac surgery. In this narrative review, the authors discuss the epidemiology and pathophysiology of PCS, the rationale and evidence behind the initiation, continuation, escalation, and discontinuation of mechanical support devices in PCS, and the anesthetic implications.

Late Right Heart Failure After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Contemporary Insights and Future Perspectives

Late right heart failure (RHF) is increasingly recognized in patients with long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support and is associated with decreased survival and increased incidence of adverse events such as gastrointestinal bleeding and stroke. Progression of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction to clinical syndrome of late RHF in patients supported with LVAD is dependent on the severity of pre-existing RV dysfunction, persistent or worsening left- or right-sided valvular heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, inadequate or excessive left ventricular unloading, and/or progression of the underlying cardiac disease. RHF likely represents a continuum of risk with early presentation and progression to late RHF. However, de novo RHF develops in a subset of patients leading to increased diuretic requirement, arrhythmias, renal and hepatic dysfunction, and heart failure hospitalizations. The distinction between isolated late RHF and RHF due to left-sided contributions is lacking in registry studies and should be the focus of future registry data collection. Potential management strategies include optimization of RV preload and afterload, neurohormonal blockade, LVAD speed optimization, and treatment of concomitant valvular disease. In this review, the authors discuss definition, pathophysiology, prevention, and management of late RHF.

Proportion of right ventricular failure and echocardiographic predictors in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Right ventricular failure (RVF) in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricle assist device (CF-LVAD) is associated with higher incidence of mortality. This systematic review aims to assess the overall proportion of RVF and the pre-operative echocardiographic parameters which are best correlating to RVF.

Methods

A systematic research was conducted between 2008 and 2019 on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, UPTODATE, OVID, COCHRANE LIBRARY, and Google Scholar electronic databases by performing a PRISMA flowchart. All observational studies regarding echocardiographic predictors of RVF in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation were included.

Results

A total number of 19 observational human studies published between 2008 and 2019 were included. We identified 524 RVF patients out of a pooled final population of 1741 patients. The RVF overall proportion was 28.25% with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.34. The highest variability of perioperative echocardiographic parameters between the RVF and no right ventricular failure (NO-RVF) groups has been found with tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), fractional area change (FAC), and right ventricular global longitudinal strain (RVGLS). Their standardized mean deviation (SMD) was - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.54 to - 0.11; p value 0.003), - 0.34 (95% CI - 0.53 to - 0.15; p value 0.0001), and 0.52 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.25; p value 0.0001), respectively.

Conclusions

The echocardiographic predictors of RVF after CF-LVAD placement are still uncertain. However, there seems to be a trend of statistical correlation between TAPSE, FAC, and RVGLS with RVF event after CF-LVAD placement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12055-022-01447-7.

Update on Mechanical Circulatory Support

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide temporary or intermediate- to long-term support for acute cardiopulmonary support. In the last 20 to 30 years, tremendous growth in MCS device usage has been seen. These devices offer support for isolated respiratory failure, isolated cardiac failure, or both. Initiation of MCS devices requires the input from multidisciplinary teams using patient factors and institutional resources to guide decision making, along with a planned "exit strategy" for bridge to decision, bridge to transplant, bridge to recovery, or as destination therapy. Important considerations for MCS use include patient selection, cannulation/insertion strategies, and complications of each device.

Three-month outcomes after the implantation of two HeartMate 3 devices in total artificial heart configuration

BACKGROUND

Total artificial heart (TAH) implantation is a rarely performed procedure. Contrarily, left ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation is rather common in many centers. As transplantation is quantitatively limited cardiac replacement with artificial hearts is a viable alternative in the treatment of severe biventricular heart failure. An alternative to TAH is the implantation of two VADs in a TAH configuration. We hereby present the first multi-center study on 3-months outcomes of patients treated by cardiectomy and placement of two HeartMate 3s in a TAH configuration.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated a cohort of 15 patients that underwent HM3-TAH-implantation at three international institutions. Follow-up was 3 months after implantation. Baseline, intra- and postoperative parameters as well as survival data and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 1089 days on HM3-TAH were observed. Thirty-day survival after HM3-TAH implantation was 53% (8/15) and three month survival was 40% (6/15). The longest duration on device was 274 days. Causes of death were multi-organ failure, sepsis, and neurological adverse events. No technical complications were documented. Two patients remained on the device. Four patients (26%) were successfully bridged to transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

The implantation of two HeartMate 3s in a TAH configuration is a last resort and off-label concept in cases of extreme biventricular heart failure. In a diligently selected patient cohort, HM3-TAH implantation is a feasible method to increase the chance of survival in a severely ill patient cohort and successfully bridge patients to heart transplantation that would otherwise have died.

Right Heart Failure Following Left Ventricular Device Implantation: Natural History, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: An Analysis of the STS INTERMACS Database

BACKGROUND

Our current understanding of right heart failure (RHF) post-left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is lacking. Recently, a new Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support definition of RHF was introduced. Based on this definition, we investigated natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of post-LVAD RHF.

METHODS

Patients implanted with continuous flow LVAD between June 2, 2014, and June 30, 2016 and registered in the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database were included. RHF incidence and predictors, and survival after RHF were assessed. The manifestations of RHF which were separately analyzed were elevated central venous pressure, peripheral edema, ascites, and use of inotropes.

RESULTS

Among 5537 LVAD recipients (mean 57±13 years, 49% destination therapy, support 18.9 months) prevalence of 1-month RHF was 24%. Of these, RHF persisted at 12 months in 5.3%. In contrast, de novo RHF, first identified at 3 months, occurred in 5.1% and persisted at 12 months in 17% of these, and at 6 months occurred in 4.8% and persisted at 12 months in 25%. Higher preimplant blood urea nitrogen (ORs,1.03-1.09 per 5 mg/dL increase; P<0.0001), previous tricuspid valve repair/replacement (ORs, 2.01-10.09; P<0.001), severely depressed right ventricular systolic function (ORs,1.17-2.20; P=0.004); and centrifugal versus axial LVAD (ORs,1.15-1.78; P=0.001) represented risk factors for RHC incidence at 3 months. Patients with persistent RHF at 3 months had the lowest 2-year survival (57%) while patients with de novo RHF or RHF which resolved by 3 months had more favorable survival outcomes (75% and 78% at 2 years, respectively; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RHF at 1 or 3 months post-LVAD was a common and frequently transient condition, which, if resolved, was associated with relatively favorable prognosis. Conversely, de novo, late RHF post-LVAD (>6 months) was more frequently a persistent disorder and associated with increased mortality. The 1-, 3-, and 6-month time points may be used for RHF assessment and risk stratification in LVAD recipients.

Predicting, Recognizing, and Treating Right Heart Failure in Patients Undergoing Durable LVAD Therapy

Despite advancing technology, right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation remains a significant source of morbidity and mortality. With the UNOS allocation policy change, a larger proportion of patients proceeding to LVAD are destination therapy and consist of an overall sicker population. Thus, a comprehensive understanding of right heart failure is critical for ensuring the ongoing success of durable LVADs. The purpose of this review is to describe the effect of LVAD implantation on right heart function, review the diagnostic and predictive criteria related to right heart failure, and discuss the current evidence for management and treatment of post-LVAD right heart failure.

A standardized definition for right ventricular failure in cardiac surgery patients

Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity after cardiac surgery. Despite its prognostic importance, RVF remains under investigated and without a universally accepted definition in the perioperative setting. We foresee that the provision of a standardized perioperative definition for RVF based on practical and objective criteria will help to improve quality of care through early detection and facilitate the generalization of RVF research to advance this field. This article provides an overview of RVF aetiology, pathophysiology, current diagnostic modalities, as well as a summary of existing RVF definitions. This is followed by our proposal for a standardized definition of perioperative RVF, one that captures RV structural and functional abnormalities through a multimodal approach based on anatomical, echocardiographic, and haemodynamic criteria that are readily available in the perioperative setting (Central Image).

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Current knowledge, complications, and future directions

Long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices have become a real alternative to heart transplantation in patients with advanced heart failure, achieving a promising 2-year event-free survival rate with new-generation devices. Currently, this technology has spread throughout the world, and any cardiologist or cardiac surgeon should be familiar with its fundamentals and its possible complications as well as the advances made in recent years. The aim of this review is to describe current knowledge, management of complications, and future directions of this novel heart-failure therapy.

Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: a review of the literature

Right ventricular failure (RVF) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a major complication which may significantly impair patient outcome. The genesis of RVF is, however, multifactorial, and the mechanisms underlying such a condition have not been fully elucidated, making its prevention challenging and the course not always predictable. Although preoperative risks factors can be associated with RV impairment, the physiologic changes after the LV support, can still hamper the function of the RV. Current medical treatment options are limited and sometimes, patients with a severe post-LVAD RVF may be unresponsive to pharmacological therapy and require more aggressive treatment, such as temporary RV support. We retrieved 11 publications which we assessed and divided in groups based on the RV support [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), right ventricular assist device (RVAD), TandemHeart with ProtekDuo cannula]. The current review comprehensively summarizes the main studies of the literature with particular attention to the RV physiology and its changes after the LVAD implantation, the predictors and prognostic score as well as the different modalities of temporary mechanical cardio-circulatory support, and its effects on patient prognosis for RVF in such a setting. In addition, it provides a decision making of the pre-, intra and post-operative management in high- and moderate- risk patients.

Ventricular assist devices implantation: surgical assessment and technical strategies

Along with the worldwide increase in continuous left ventricular assist device (LVAD) strategy adoption, more and more patients with demanding anatomical and clinical features are currently referred to heart failure (HF) departments for treatment. Thus surgeons have to deal, technically, with re-entry due to previous cardiac surgery procedures, porcelain aorta, peripheral vascular arterial disease, concomitant valvular or septal disease, biventricular failure. New surgical techniques and surgical tools have been developed to offer acceptable postoperative outcomes to all mechanical circulatory support recipients. Several less invasive and/or thoracotomic approaches for surgery combined with various LVAD inflow and outflow graft alternative anastomotic sites for system placement have been reported and described to solve complex clinical scenarios. Surgical techniques have been upgraded with further technical tips to preserve the native anatomy in case of re-entry for heart transplantation, myocardial recovery or device explant. The current continuous-flow miniaturized and intrapericardial devices provide versatility and technical advantages. However, the surgical planning requires a careful multidisciplinary evaluation which must be driven by a dedicated and well-trained Heart Failure team. Biventricular assist device (BVAD) implantation by adoption of the newer radial pumps might be a challenge. However, the results are encouraging thus remaining a valid option. This paper reviews and summarizes LVAD preoperative assessment and current surgical techniques for implantation.

Right Ventricular Failure Post-Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Device: Prevalence, Pathophysiology, and Predictors

Despite advances in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology, right ventricular failure (RVF) continues to be a complication after implantation. Most patients undergoing LVAD implantation have underlying right ventricular (RV) dysfunction (either as a result of prolonged LV failure or systemic disorders) that becomes decompensated post-implantation. Additional insults include intra-operative factors or a sudden increase in preload in the setting of increased cardiac output. The current literature estimates post-LVAD RVF from 3.9% to 53% using a diverse set of definitions. A few of the risk factors that have been identified include markers of cardiogenic shock (e.g., dependence on inotropes and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles) as well as evidence of cardiorenal or cardiohepatic syndromes. Several studies have devised multivariable risk scores; however, their performance has been limited. A new functional assessment of RVF and a novel hepatic marker that describe cholestatic properties of congestive hepatopathy may provide additional predictive value. Furthermore, future studies can help better understand the relationship between pulmonary hypertension and post-LVAD RVF. To achieve our ultimate goal-to prevent and effectively manage RVF post-LVAD-we must start with a better understanding of the risk factors and pathophysiology. Future research on the different etiologies of RVF-ranging from acute post-surgical complication to late-onset RV cardiomyopathy-will help standardize definitions and tailor therapies appropriately.

The left atrium and the right ventricle: two supporting chambers to the failing left ventricle

Heart failure (HF) is mainly caused by left ventricular (LV) impairment of function, hence detailed assessment of its structure and function is a clinical priority. The frequent involvement of the left atrium (LA) and the right ventricle (RV) in the overall cardiac performance has recently gained significant interest with specific markers predicting exercise intolerance and prognosis being proposed. The LA and RV are not anatomically separated from the LV, while the LA controls the inlet the RV shares the interventricular septum with the LV. Likewise, the function of the two chambers is not entirely independent from that of the LV, with the LA enlarging to accommodate any rise in filling pressures, which could get transferred to the RV via the pulmonary circulation. In the absence of pulmonary disease, LA and RV function may become impaired in patients with moderate-severe LV disease and raised filling pressures. These changes can often occur irrespective of the severity of systolic dysfunction, thus highlighting the important need for critical assessment of the function of the two chambers. This review evaluates the pivotal role of the left atrium and right ventricle in the management of HF patients based on the available evidence.

Hurdles to Cardioprotection in the Critically Ill

Cardiovascular disease is the largest contributor to worldwide mortality, and the deleterious impact of heart failure (HF) is projected to grow exponentially in the future. As heart transplantation (HTx) is the only effective treatment for end-stage HF, development of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) technology has unveiled additional therapeutic options for refractory cardiac disease. Unfortunately, despite both MCS and HTx being quintessential treatments for significant cardiac impairment, associated morbidity and mortality remain high. MCS technology continues to evolve, but is associated with numerous disturbances to cardiac function (e.g., oxidative damage, arrhythmias). Following MCS intervention, HTx is frequently the destination option for survival of critically ill cardiac patients. While effective, donor hearts are scarce, thus limiting HTx to few qualifying patients, and HTx remains correlated with substantial post-HTx complications. While MCS and HTx are vital to survival of critically ill cardiac patients, cardioprotective strategies to improve outcomes from these treatments are highly desirable. Accordingly, this review summarizes the current status of MCS and HTx in the clinic, and the associated cardiac complications inherent to these treatments. Furthermore, we detail current research being undertaken to improve cardiac outcomes following MCS/HTx, and important considerations for reducing the significant morbidity and mortality associated with these necessary treatment strategies.

Chronic Heart Failure Treatment With the Left Ventricular Assist Device

The prevalence of chronic heart failure is increasing in the United States due to the increase in the number of older adults and because many people are surviving acute cardiac events and living longer with chronic heart disease. In end-stage heart failure, heart transplant was once the gold standard of treatment and patients had to wait for a matching heart donor. In the past, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) was a mechanical circulatory support treatment used temporarily for those awaiting heart transplant. However, the LVAD is increasingly becoming the chosen treatment of patients in lieu of heart transplant. Home healthcare nurses and clinicians need to be familiar with LVADs in order to care for patients in end-stage heart failure who are using these devices. This article explains the mechanism, potential complications, and nursing implications of caring for the patient who is using an LVAD.