Aortic insufficiency in the patient on contemporary durable left ventricular assist device support: A state-of-the-art review on preoperative and postoperative assessment and management

The development of aortic insufficiency (AI) during HeartMate 3 durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) support can lead to ineffective pump output and recurrent heart failure symptoms. Progression of AI often comingles with the occurrence of other hemodynamic-related events encountered during LVAD support, including right heart failure, arrhythmias, and cardiorenal syndrome. While data on AI burdens and clinical impact are still insufficient in patients on HeartMate 3 support, moderate or worse AI occurs in approximately 8% of patients by 1 year and studies suggest AI continues to progress over time and is associated with increased frequency of right heart failure. The first line intervention for AI management is prevention, undertaking surgical intervention on the insufficient valve at the time of dLVAD implant and avoiding excessive device flows and hypertension during long-term support. Device speed augmentation may then be undertaken to try and overcome the insufficient lesion, but the progression of AI should be anticipated over the long term. Surgical or transcatheter aortic valve interventions may be considered in dLVAD patients with significant persistent AI despite medical management, but neither intervention is without risk. It is imperative that future studies of dLVAD support capture AI in clinical end-points using uniform assessment and grading of AI severity by individuals trained in AI assessment during dLVAD support.

Echocardiographic haemodynamic monitoring in the context of HeartMate 3™ therapy: a systematic review

AIMS

While echocardiography remains essential within haemodynamic monitoring of durable mechanical circulatory support, previous echocardiographic guidelines are missing scientific evidence for the novel HeartMate 3™ (HM3) system. Accordingly, this review aims to summarize available echocardiographic evidence including HM3.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted during August 2023 across PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar using specific echocardiographic terms combined with system identifiers. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies and Critical Appraisal Instrument (PCAI) for cross-sectional studies. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which eight cohort studies and one cross-sectional study. Aortic regurgitation (AR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited heterogenicity (33.5% (Δ 33%)) in a limited number of studies (n = 3). Several studies (n = 5) demonstrated an increasing prevalence and severity of AR during HM3 support, generating moderate to high level of evidence. One AR study showed a higher cumulative incidence of death and heart failure (HF) readmission compared with those without significant AR, hazard ratio 3.42 (95% CI 1.48-8.76). A second study showed that a worsening AR group had significantly lower survival-free from HF readmission (59% vs. 89%, P = 0.023) with a hazard ratio of 5.18 (95% CI 1.07-25.0), while a third study did not reveal any differences in cardiac-related hospitalizations in the 12 months follow-up or non-cardiac-related hospitalization. Mitral regurgitation (MR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited good consistency 15.0% (Δ 0.8%) in both included studies, which did not reveal any significant pattern of changing prevalence over time. Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) prevalence at approximately 12 months of support exhibited fair consistency 28.5% (Δ 8.3%) in a limited number of studies (n = 2); both studies showed a statistically un-confirmed trend of increased TR prevalence over time. The evidence of general prevalence of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) was insufficient due to lack of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There are few methodologically consistent studies with focus on long-term haemodynamic effects. Aortic regurgitation still seems to be a prevalent and potentially significant finding. The available evidence concerning right heart function is limited despite clinical relevance and potential prognostic value. Potential interventricular and haemodynamic interplay are identified as a white field for future research.

Safety and efficacy of aortic valvuloplasty for de novo aortic insufficiency in patients with a left-ventricular assist device

OBJECTIVES

Progression of aortic insufficiency during left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) support is a crucial topic. One treatment option is aortic valvuloplasty (AVP); however, there is controversy regarding its safety and efficacy. We investigated the safety and efficacy of AVP using the coaptation stitch method (Park's stitch) performed for de novo aortic insufficiency.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2020, 175 consecutive patients underwent LVAD implantation, of which 7 patients [men, 2 (28.6%); median age, 55 years] underwent late-stage AVP. Two patients underwent AVP within 2 weeks, and the remaining six patients underwent AVP 3, 19, 24, 28, 42, and 49 months, respectively, after LVAD implantation.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, the degree of aortic insufficiency was moderate in 6 (85.7%) patients and severe in 1 (14.3%) patient. AVP was technically successful in 6 (85.7%) patients, while one case of failed plasty was subsequently treated with bioprosthetic valve replacement. A 1-year post-AVP right heart catheterization study revealed a median pulmonary artery wedge pressure of 10.0 mmHg. No deaths or heart failure admissions occurred during the follow-up (median, 38.0 months). There was no aortic insufficiency in 2 (28.6%) patients; however, trivial AI was observed in 3 (42.8%) patients, and mild AI was observed in 1 (14.3%) patient 2 years postoperatively. However, at the 3-year follow-up, two patients developed an increase in AI grade from trivial to mild.

CONCLUSIONS

AVP using Park's stitch was safe. It is critical to carefully observe the aortic valve during AVP surgery to ensure that AVP is appropriate.

Special Considerations for Advanced Heart Failure Surgeries: Durable Left Ventricular Devices and Heart Transplantation

Heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent two definitive therapies for end-stage heart failure in the modern era. Despite technological advances, both treatment modalities continue to experience unique risks that impact surgical and perioperative decision-making. Here, we review special populations and factors that impact risk in LVAD and heart transplant surgery and examine critical decisions in the management of these patients. As both heart transplantation and the use of durable LVADs as destination therapy continue to increase, these considerations will be of increasing relevance in managing advanced heart failure and improving outcomes.

Managing valvular pathology during LVAD implantation

Since the time of their invention, implantable continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have improved the quality of life and extended survival for patients with advanced heart failure. The decision surgeons and their physician colleagues make with these patients to undergo implantation must come with full understanding of the immediate, short-term, and long-term implications of such a life-changing procedure. The presence of pathology regarding the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves introduces particularly complex problems for the surgical treatment strategy. Concomitant valve repair or replacement increases cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times, and could potentially lead to worse outcomes in the perioperative setting. Following perioperative recovery, valvular pathology may worsen or arise de novo given the often drastic immediate physiologic changes in blood flow, septal function, and, over time, ventricular remodeling. Over the past two decades, there has been vast improvement in the device manufacturing, surgical techniques, and medical management surrounding LVAD implantation. Yet, addressing concomitant valvular pathology remains a complex question with no perfect solutions. This review aims to briefly describe the evolution of approach to valvular pathology in the LVAD patient and offer our opinion and treatment rationale.

Aortic valve disorders and left ventricular assist devices

Aortic valve disorders are important considerations in advanced heart failure patients being evaluated for left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and those on LVAD support. Aortic insufficiency (AI) can be present prior to LVAD implantation or develop de novo during LVAD support. It is usually a progressive disorder and can lead to impaired LVAD effectiveness and heart failure symptoms. Severe AI is associated with worsening hemodynamics, increased hospitalizations, and decreased survival in LVAD patients. Diagnosis is made with echocardiographic, device assessment, and/or catheterization studies. Standard echocardiographic criteria for AI are insufficient for accurate diagnosis of AI severity. Management of pre-existing AI includes aortic repair or replacement at the time of LVAD implant. Management of de novo AI on LVAD support is challenging with increased risks of repeat surgical intervention, and percutaneous techniques including transcatheter aortic valve replacement are assuming greater importance. In this manuscript, we provide a comprehensive approach to contemporary diagnosis and management of aortic valve disorders in the setting of LVAD therapy.

Concomitant or late aortic valve intervention and its efficacy for aortic insufficiency associated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation

Moderate to severe aortic insufficiency (AI) in patients who underwent continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation is a significant complication. According to the INTERMACS registry analysis, at least mild AI occurs in 55% of patients at 6 months after CF-LVAD implantation and moderate to severe AI is significantly associated with higher rates of re-hospitalization and mortality. The clinical implications of these data may underscore consideration of prophylactic aortic valve replacement, or repair, at the time of CF-LVAD implantation, particularly with expected longer duration of support and in patients with preexisting AI that is more than mild. More crucially, even if a native aortic valve is seemingly competent at the time of VAD implantation, we frequently find de novo AI as time goes by, potentially due to commissural fusion in the setting of inconsistent aortic valve opening or persistent valve closure caused by CF-LVAD support, that alters morphological and functional properties of innately competent aortic valves. Therefore, close monitoring of AI is mandatory, as the prognostic nature of its longitudinal progression is still unclear. Clearly, significant AI during VAD support warrants surgical intervention at the appropriate timing, especially in patients of destination therapy. Nonetheless, such an uncertainty in the progression of AI translates to a lack of consensus regarding the management of this untoward complication. In practice, proposed surgical options are aortic valve replacement, repair, closure, and more recently transcatheter aortic valve implantation or closure. Transcatheter approach is of course less invasive, however, its efficacy in terms of long-term outcome is limited. In this review, we summarize the recent evidence related to the pathophysiology and surgical treatment of AI associated with CF-LVAD implantation.

Pathophysiology and management of valvular disease in patients with destination left ventricular assist devices

Over the last two decades, implantable continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have proven to be invaluable tools for the management of selected advanced heart failure patients, improving patient longevity and quality of life. The presence of concomitant valvular pathology, including that involving the tricuspid, mitral, and aortic valve, has important implications relating to the decision to move forward with LVAD implantation. Furthermore, the presence of concomitant valvular pathology often influences the surgical strategy for LVAD implantation. Concomitant valve repair or replacement is not uncommonly required in such circumstances, which increases surgical complexity and has demonstrated prognostic implications both short and longer term following LVAD implantation. Beyond the index operation, it is also well established that certain valvular pathologies may develop or worsen over time following LVAD support. The presence of pre-existing valvular pathology or that which develops following LVAD implant is of particular importance to the destination therapy LVAD patient population. As these patients are not expected to have the opportunity for heart transplantation in the future, optimization of LVAD support including ameliorating valvular disease is critical for the maximization of patient longevity and quality of life. As collective experience has grown over time, the ability of clinicians to effectively address concomitant valvular pathology in LVAD patients has improved in the pre-implant, implant, and post-implant phase, through both medical management and procedural optimization. Nevertheless, there remains uncertainty over many facets of concomitant valvular pathology in advanced heart failure patients, and the understanding of how to best approach these conditions in the LVAD patient population continues to evolve. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of the current state of the field relating to the pathophysiology and management of valvular disease in destination LVAD patients.