Reviewing the use of ventricular assist devices in the elderly: where do we stand today?

Ventricular arrhythmias in patients with biventricular assist devices

PURPOSE

Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) are common in patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant and are associated with worse outcomes. However, the prevalence and impact of VA in patients with durable biventricular assist device (BIVAD) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with BIVADs to evaluate the prevalence of VA and their clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received a BIVAD between June 2014 and July 2017 at our medical center were included. The prevalence of VA, defined as sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation requiring defibrillation or ICD therapy, was compared between BIVAD patients and a propensity-matched population of patients with LVAD from our center. The occurrence of adverse clinical events was compared between BIVAD patients with and without VA.

RESULTS

Of the 13 patients with BIVADs, 6 patients (46%) experienced clinically significant VA, similar to a propensity-matched LVAD population (38%, p = 1.00). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the two cohorts, except patients in the non-VA group who had worse hemodynamics (mitral regurgitation and right-sided indices), had less history of VA, and were younger. BIVAD patients with VA had a higher incidence of major bleeding (MR 3.05 (1.07-8.66), p = 0.036) and worse composite outcomes (log-rank test, p = 0.046). The presence of VA was associated with worse outcomes in both LVAD and BIVAD groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular arrhythmias are common in patients with BIVADs and are associated with worse outcomes. Future work should assess whether therapies such as ablation improve the outcome of BIVAD patients with VA.

Contemporary Management of Heart Failure in the Elderly

The foundation of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is a number of pharmacotherapies shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in large randomised multinational clinical trials. These include angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and more recently, a combined angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan. In select cases, digoxin, ivabradine and hydralazine with isosorbide dinitrate have a role to play in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. On this foundation, other more advanced treatments such as implantable cardioverter defibrillators and cardiac resynchronisation therapy are recommended in guidelines for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (i.e. an ejection fraction of ≤ 40%) and for a select few there remains the option of mechanical circulatory support and cardiac transplantation. The efficacy of pharmacotherapy does not vary by age and each of these therapies should be considered in all patients, irrespective of age. Other factors such as co-morbidities like renal dysfunction may limit the use of some of these drugs in the elderly. Decision making with regard to device therapy is more complex; the likelihood of competing non-cardiovascular causes of death and life expectancy need to be considered. Despite multiple treatment options for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the options for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction are limited. In the absence of robust outcomes data from a large randomised trial, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist is a reasonable therapy to reduce the risk of hospitalisation for heart failure in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.