Clinical implications of late-onset right ventricular failure after implantation of a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device as bridge to transplantation

Different ECLS Pump Configurations for Temporary Right Ventricular Assist Device in LVAD Patients: A Retrospective Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Acute right ventricular failure is a critical complication after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, often managed with a temporary paracorporeal right ventricular assist device (RVAD). This study examined three extracorporeal life support (ECLS) systems regarding mortality, bleeding complications, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay duration.

METHODS

This monocentric, retrospective case-control study included all patients receiving LVAD with paracorporeal RVAD between 2009 and 2020. Three patient groups were formed: CentrimagTM (A), CardiohelpTM (B), and DeltastreamTM (C).

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were included. Preoperative parameters were similar between the CentrimagTM and DeltastreamTM groups, but CardiohelpTM patients had worse Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Scores (A: 1.7 ± 0.8, B: 1.36 ± 0.5, C: 1.9 ± 0.9; p < 0.05). In-hospital death rates were A: 61 (41.8%), B: 15 (32.6%), C: 29 (54.7%); p < 0.05, and reoperation due to bleeding rates were A: 32 (21.9%), B: 8 (17.4%), C: 25 (47.2%); p < 0.05, with the DeltastreamTM group showing the highest rates. This group also had increased thrombocyte consumption and prolonged ICU stays.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary RVADs lead to bleeding complications, affecting patient outcomes. The DeltastreamTM group had significantly higher bleeding complications, likely due to high pump revolution rates and thrombocyte decline. Due to the study's retrospective nature and complex patient profiles, these interesting findings should be validated in future studies.

Right heart failure with left ventricular assist devices: Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative management strategies. A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Right heart failure (RHF) following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a common and potentially serious condition with a wide spectrum of clinical presentations with an unfavourable effect on patient outcomes. Clinical scores that predict the occurrence of right ventricular (RV) failure have included multiple clinical, biochemical, imaging and haemodynamic parameters. However, unless the right ventricle is overtly dysfunctional with end-organ involvement, prediction of RHF post-LVAD implantation is, in most cases, difficult and inaccurate. For these reasons optimization of RV function in every patient is a reasonable practice aiming at preparing the right ventricle for a new and challenging haemodynamic environment after LVAD implantation. To this end, the institution of diuretics, inotropes and even temporary mechanical circulatory support may improve RV function, thereby preparing it for a better adaptation post-LVAD implantation. Furthermore, meticulous management of patients during the perioperative and immediate postoperative period should facilitate identification of RV failure refractory to medication. When RHF occurs late during chronic LVAD support, this is associated with worse long-term outcomes. Careful monitoring of RV function and characterization of the origination deficit should therefore continue throughout the patient's entire follow-up. Despite the useful information provided by the echocardiogram with respect to RV function, right heart catheterization frequently offers additional support for the assessment and optimization of RV function in LVAD-supported patients. In any patient candidate for LVAD therapy, evaluation and treatment of RV function and failure should be assessed in a multidimensional and multidisciplinary manner.

HeartMate 3 implantation with an emphasis on the biventricular configuration

OBJECTIVES

Right ventricular failure following implantation of a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a major driver of mortality. Reported survival following biventricular (BiVAD) or total artificial heart (TAH) implantation remains substantially inferior to LVAD alone. We report our outcomes with LVAD and BiVAD HeartMate 3 (HM3).

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing implantation of an HM3 LVAD between November 2014 and December 2021, at The Alfred, Australia were included in the study. Comparison was made between the BiVAD and LVAD alone groups.

RESULTS

A total of 86 patients, 65 patients with LVAD alone and 21 in a BiVAD configuration underwent implantation. The median age of the LVAD and BiVAD groups was 56 years (Interquartile range 46-62) and 49 years (Interquartile range 37-55), respectively. By 4 years after implantation, 54% of LVAD patients and 43% of BiVAD patients had undergone cardiac transplantation. The incidence of stroke in the entire experience was 3.5% and pump thrombosis 5% (all in the RVAD). There were 14 deaths in the LVAD group and 1 in the BiVAD group. The actuarial survival for LVAD patients at 1 year was 85% and BiVAD patients at 1 year was 95%.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of HM 3 BiVAD support in selected patients appears to offer a satisfactory solution to patients requiring biventricular support.

Right ventricular dysfunction in left ventricular assist device candidates: is it time to change our prospective?

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has significantly increased in the last years, trying to offer a therapeutic alternative to heart transplantation, in light also to the significant heart donor shortage compared to the growing advanced heart failure population. Despite technological improvements in the devices, LVAD-related mortality is still fairly high, with right heart failure being one of the predominant predictors. Therefore, many efforts have been made toward a thorough right ventricular (RV) evaluation prior to LVAD implant, considering clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic, and invasive hemodynamic parameters. However, there is high heterogeneity regarding both which predictor is the strongest as well as the relative cut-off values, and a consensus has not been reached yet, increasing the risk of facing patients in which the distinction between good or poor RV function cannot be surely reached. In parallel, due to technological development and availability of mechanical circulatory support of the RV, LVADs are being considered even in patients with suboptimal RV function. The aim of our review is to analyze the current evidence regarding the role of RV function prior to LVAD and its evaluation, pointing out the extreme variability in parameters that are currently assessed and future prospective regarding new diagnostic tools. Finally, we attempt to gather the available information on the therapeutic strategies to use in the peri-operative phase, in order to reduce the incidence of RV failure, especially in patients in which the preoperative evaluation highlighted some conflicting results with regard to ventricular function.

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.

Prediction, prevention, and management of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: A comprehensive review

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common across the heart failure population. Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a feared complication that can occur in the early post-operative phase or during the outpatient follow-up. Multiple tools are available to the clinician to carefully estimate the individual risk of developing RVF after LVAD implantation. This review will provide a comprehensive overview of available tools for RVF prognostication, including patient-specific and right ventricle (RV)-specific echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters, to provide guidance in patient selection during LVAD candidacy. We also offer a multidisciplinary approach to the management of early RVF, including indications and management of right ventricular assist devices in this setting to provide tools that help managing the failing RV.

Right heart failure after left ventricular assist device: From mechanisms to treatments

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is a lifesaving option for patients with medical therapy-refractory advanced heart failure. Depending on the definition, 5-44% of people supported with an LVAD develop right heart failure (RHF), which is associated with worse outcomes. The mechanisms related to RHF include patient, surgical, and hemodynamic factors. Despite significant progress in understanding the roles of these factors and improvements in surgical techniques and LVAD technology, this complication is still a substantial cause of morbidity and mortality among LVAD patients. Additionally, specific medical therapies for this complication still are lacking, leaving cardiac transplantation or supportive management as the only options for LVAD patients who develop RHF. While significant effort has been made to create algorithms aimed at stratifying risk for RHF in patients undergoing LVAD implantation, the predictive value of these algorithms has been limited, especially when attempts at external validation have been undertaken. Perhaps one of the reasons for poor performance in external validation is related to differing definitions of RHF in external cohorts. Additionally, most research in this field has focused on RHF occurring in the early phase (i.e., ≤1 month) post LVAD implantation. However, there is emerging recognition of late-onset RHF (i.e., > 1 month post-surgery) as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Late-onset RHF, which likely has a unique physiology and pathogenic mechanisms, remains poorly characterized. In this review of the literature, we will describe the unique right ventricular physiology and changes elicited by LVADs that might cause both early- and late-onset RHF. Finally, we will analyze the currently available treatments for RHF, including mechanical circulatory support options and medical therapies.

The right ventricular involvement in dilated cardiomyopathy: prevalence and prognostic implications of the often-neglected child

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a primary heart muscle disease characterized by left or biventricular systolic impairment. Historically, most of the clinical attention has been devoted to the evaluation of left ventricular function and morphology, while right ventricle (RV) has been for many years the forgotten chamber. Recently, progresses in cardiac imaging gave clinicians precious tools for the evaluation of RV, raising the awareness of the importance of biventricular assessment in DCM. Indeed, RV involvement is far from being uncommon in DCM, and the presence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) is one of the major negative prognostic determinants in DCM patients. However, some aspects such as the possible role of specific genetic mutations in determining the biventricular phenotype in DCM, or the lack of specific treatments able to primarily counteract RVD, still need research. In this review, we summarized the current knowledge on RV involvement in DCM, giving an overview on the epidemiology and pathogenetic mechanisms implicated in determining RVD. Furthermore, we discussed the imaging techniques to evaluate RV function and the role of RV failure in advanced heart failure.

Ex-Vivo Preservation with the Organ Care System in High Risk Heart Transplantation

Objective: Ex vivo organ perfusion is an advanced preservation technique that allows graft assessment and extended ex situ intervals. We hypothesized that its properties might be especially beneficial for high-risk recipients and/or donors with extended criteria. Methods: We reviewed the outcomes of 119 consecutive heart transplant patients, which were divided into two groups: A (OCS) vs. B (conventional). Ex vivo organ perfusion was performed using the Organ Care System (OCS). Indications for OCS-usage were expected ischemic time of >4 h or >2 h plus given extended donor criteria. Results: Both groups included mostly redo cases (A: 89.7% vs. B: 78.4%; p = 0.121). Incidences of donors with previous cardiac arrest (%) (A: 32.4 vs. B: 22.2; p < 0.05) or LV-hypertrophy (%) (A: 19.1 vs. B: 8.3; p = 0.119) were also increased in Group A. Ex situ time (min) was significantly longer in Group A (A: 381 (74) vs. B: 228 (43); p < 0.05). Ventilation time (days) (A: 10.0 (19.9) vs. B: 24.3 (43.2); p = 0.057), postoperative need for ECLS (%) (A: 25.0 vs. B: 39.2; p = 0.112) and postoperative dialysis (chronic) (%) (A: 4.4 vs. B: 27.5; p < 0.001) were numerically better in the OCS group, without any difference in the occurrence of early graft rejection. The 30-d-survival (A: 92.4% vs. B: 90.2%; p = 0.745) and mid-term survival were statistically not different between both groups. Conclusions: OCS heart allowed safe transplantation of surgically complex recipients with excellent one-year outcomes, despite long preservation times and unfavourable donor characteristics. Furthermore, we observed trends towards decreased ventilation times and fewer ECLS treatments. In times of reduced organ availability and increasing recipient complexity, OCS heart is a valuable instrument that enables otherwise infeasible allocations and contributes to increase surgical safety.

Late-onset right ventricular failure after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation: case presentation and review of the literature

With the widespread use of implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD), right ventricular failure (RVF) has become a serious problem that becomes apparent several weeks or later after LVAD implantation. However, there are no marked preoperative signs of RVF. This is called late-onset RVF and is currently a major problem leading to long-term complications following implantable LVAD use. Pathogenically, this could be the result of left ventricular suction by LVAD that causes the septum shift to the left ventricular side. This causes a change in morphology of the right ventricle, resulting in impaired right ventricular function. Aortic insufficiency and ventricular arrhythmia, which are also important as long-term complications after LVAD implantation, are considered to be closely involved in the onset and progression of RVF. Once late-onset RVF develops, exercise capacity declines and inotrope administration may be required. Late-onset RVF was also reported to be significantly associated with increased mortality. Several predictors of RVF have been proposed such as preoperative left ventricular diastolic dimension <64 mm, tricuspid valve annulus diameter ≥41 mm, and so on. However, some reports identified no predictors. The basic treatment strategy for late-onset RVF is to optimize volume status by administering diuretics and ensuring inotrope as needed. β-blockers and antiarrhythmic agents often need to be reduced in terms of dosage or even discontinued because these might reduce right ventricular function. Although their efficacy is unclear, pulmonary vasodilators may be used to reduce right ventricular afterload. It is better to decrease the rotation speed of LVAD to minimize the displacement of the septum; however, this is often difficult because the required flow rate cannot be secured. Progress in the prevention and management of late-onset RVF is required because the number of patients who require longer-term LVAD support will increase with the spread of LVAD use as destination therapy.

Sympathetic vasoconstrictor activity before and after left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with end-stage heart failure

AIMS

Sympathetic overactivity, which predicts poor outcome in patients with heart failure, normalizes following cardiac transplantation. We tested the hypothesis that haemodynamic improvement following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is also associated with reductions in centrally generated sympathetic activity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In eight patients with heart failure (two women, six men, age 44-66 years), we continuously recorded electrocardiogram, beat-to-beat finger blood pressure, respiration, and muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) before and after implantation of the continuous-flow LVAD devices HeartWare HVAD (n = 4) and HeartMate II (n = 2), and the non-continuous-flow device HeartMate 3 (n = 2). LVAD implantation increased cardiac output by 1.29 ± 0.88 L/min (P = 0.060) and mean arterial pressure by 16.2 ± 7.9 mmHg (P < 0.001), while reducing pulse pressure by 25.3 ± 9.8 mmHg (P < 0.001). LVAD implantation did not change MSNA burst frequency (-1.3 ± 7.5 bursts/min, P = 0.636), total activity (+0.62 ± 1.83 au, P = 0.369), or normalized activity (+0.63 ± 4.23, P = 0.685). MSNA burst incidence was decreased (-7.8 ± 9.3 bursts/100 heart beats, P = 0.049). However, cardiac ectopy altered MSNA bursting patterns that could be mistaken for sympatholysis.

CONCLUSION

Implantation of current design LVAD does not consistently normalize sympathetic activity in patients with end-stage heart failure despite haemodynamic improvement.