Existing issues and valid concerns in continuous-flow ventricular assist devices

Biomechanical effects of the working modes of LVADs on the aortic valve: A primary numerical study

Aortic valve diseases caused by the support from left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have attracted increasing attention due to the wide application of the LVADs. However, the biomechanical effects of the working modes of LVADs on the aortic valve are still poorly understood. Hence, in this study, these biomechanical effects are investigated using a novel fluid-structure interaction method, which combines the lattice Boltzmann and the finite element methods. On the basis of the clinical practice, three working modes of LVADs, namely, the constant flow, co-pulse, and counter pulse modes, are chosen. Results demonstrate that the working mode of LVADs is an important factor as it can change the biomechanical states of the aortic valve and the hemodynamic environment in the aortic root directly. Compared with the constant flow mode, the two other working modes can provide better biomechanical effects on the aortic valve. However, the advantages of the co-pulse and the counter pulse modes on the aortic valve are not the same. The LVADs in the co-pulse mode can remarkable reduce the pressure load of the leaflets during the diastolic phase (maximum stress: co-pulse mode, 0.85 MPa; constant flow mode, 1.23 MPa; counter pulse mode, 1.50 MPa). By contrast, the LVADs in the counter pulse mode can achieve the highest effective orifice area of the aortic valve (co-pulse mode: 0.12 cm², constant flow mode: 0.17 cm², counter pulse mode: 0.25 cm²). In sum, the co-pulse mode is suitable for patients with certain cardiac function, because this mode keeps the valve open intermittently and reduces the pressure load on the aortic leaflets during the diastolic phase to prevent valve remodeling. By contrast, the counter pulse mode is suitable for patients with severely impaired cardiac function, because this mode keeps the valve open as much as possible and provides high blood perfusion.

Endothelial Function in Patients With Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

The endothelium plays a crucial role in maintaining cardiovascular homeostasis. Shear stress generated by flowing blood regulates the release of substances that provide adequate tissue perfusion. The extent of damage to endothelial cells depends on locally disturbed shear stress caused by the deteriorated flow. Patients with heart failure have reduced cardiac output, which results in reduced blood flow and negative shear stress. Reduced shear stress also affects microcirculation and reduces tissue perfusion. Consequently, the production of free oxygen radicals is increased and bioavailability of nitric oxide is additionally decreased. Therefore, endothelial dysfunction is involved in the progression of heart failure and cardiovascular events. Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are used for the treatment of patients with advanced heart failure. Older pulsatile flow LVADs were mostly substituted by continuous-flow LVADs (cf-LVADs). Despite the advantages of the cf-LVADs, the loss of pulsatility leads to different complications on the micro- and macrovascular levels. One of the pathogenetic mechanisms of cardiovascular complications with cf-LVADs may be endothelial dysfunction, which after the implantation of the device does not improve and may even deteriorate. In contrast, the pulsatile pattern of LVADs on blood flow could preserve endothelial function.

Role of paediatric assist device in bridge to transplant

Background

While heart transplantation has gained recognition as the gold standard therapy for advanced heart failure, the scarcity of donor organs has become an important concern. The evolution of surgical alternatives such as ventricular assist devices (VADs), allow for recovery of the myocardium and ensure patient survival until heart transplantation becomes possible. This report elaborates the role of VADs as a bridge to heart transplantation in infants and children (≤18 years old) with end-stage heart failure.

Methods

A retrospective review of the medical records of 201 heart transplant recipients between May 1986 and September 2014 identified 78 children [38.8%; mean age 7.2 (7.8±6.0) years old; IQR: 2.6-11.8 years] with advanced heart failure who were supported with a VAD [left VAD (LVAD) =21; biventricular VAD (BVAD) =57] as a bridge to heart transplantation. Fourteen (17.9%) patients were less than 1 year old; 15 (19.2%) children had a cardiac arrest and underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, with 7 of these patients also requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support prior to implantation of a VAD. The aetiology of heart failure was primarily cardiomyopathy (dilative, restrictive from endocardial fibrosis, idiopathic or toxic-induced), reported in 56 (71.8%) patients. The VADs employed were primarily Berlin Heart EXCOR^® (n=63), HeartWare (n=13), Berlin Heart INCOR^® (n=1), and Toyobo (n=1).

Results

Mean duration of VAD support was 59 (133.37±191.57) days (range, 1-945 days; IQR: 23-133 days) before a donor heart became available. The primary complication encountered while patients were being bridged to transplant was mediastinal bleeding (7.8%). The main indication for pump exchanges was thrombus formation in the valves. There was no incidence of technical failure of the blood pump or driving system components. Skin infections around the cannulae occurred in 2.5%. Adverse neurological symptoms (thromboembolism 11.1%, cerebral haemorrhage 3.6%) that occurred did not have any permanent neurological sequelae that could be detected on clinical examination in this study. Mean duration of follow-up was 9.4 (10.3±7.6) years (IQR: 3.74-15.14 years). Cumulative survival rates of patients bridged to transplantation with VAD were 93.6%±2.8%, 84.6%±4.1%, 79.1%±4.7%, 63.8%±6.2%, 61.6%±7.1%, and 52.1%±9.3% at 30 days, 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (P=0.79) in survival rates of patients bridged to heart transplantation with VAD compared to those who underwent primary heart transplantation. Post-transplant survival rates stratified according to the type of VAD implanted and number of ventricles supported were not statistically different (P=0.93 and 0.73, respectively). In addition, post-transplant survival rates were not significantly different when age, gender and diagnosis were adjusted for. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found when post-transplant survival rates of children who had episodes of rejection were compared to those who did not have episodes of rejection.

Conclusions

The results in this series demonstrate that VADs satisfactorily support paediatric patients with advanced heart failure from a variety of aetiologies until heart transplantation. The data further suggests that patients bridged with VADs have comparable long-term post-transplant survival as those undergoing primary heart transplantation.