Effect of Preoperative Atrial Fibrillation on Patients with Chronic Heart Failure Who Undergo Long-Term Continuous-Flow LVAD Implantation

Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Right Ventricular Failure Post Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An INTERMACS Analysis

Right heart failure (RHF) management after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation includes inotropes, right ventricular mechanical support, and heart transplantation. The purpose of this study is to compare different RHF treatment strategies in patients with a magnetically levitated centrifugal LVAD. A total of 6,632 Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patients from 2013 to 2020 were included. Of which, 769 (69.6%) patients (group 1) were supported with inotropes (≥14 days post-LVAD implantation), 233 (21.1%) patients (group 2) were supported with temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) that was implanted during LVAD implant, 77 (7.0%) patients (group 3) with durable centrifugal RVAD implanted during the LVAD implant, and 26 (2.4%) patients (group 4) were supported with RVAD (temporary or permanent), which was implanted at a later stage. Groups 1 and 4 had higher survival rates in comparison with group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.513, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.402-0.655, p < 0.001, versus group 1) and group 3 (HR = 0.461, 95% CIs = 0.320-0.666, p < 0.001, versus group 1). Patients in group 3 showed higher heart transplantation rates at 12 and 36 months as compared with group 1 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 21.9% and 37.4%, respectively), group 2 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 25.8% and 39.3%, respectively), and group 4 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 3.8% and 12.0%, respectively). Severe RHF post-LVAD is associated with poor survival. Patients with LVAD who during the perioperative period are in need of right ventricular temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support constitute a group at particular risk. Improvement of devices tailored for right ventricular support is mandatory for further evolution of the field.

Patient factors associated with left ventricular assist device infections: A scoping review

Infections are widely prevalent in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients and associated with adverse events including mortality and rehospitalizations. Current evidence examining factors associated with infections in this setting predominantly comprises single-center observational data. We performed a scoping review to systematically summarize all existing studies examining patient-related factors associated with infections after LVAD implantation. Studies published between 01/06 and 02/19 were identified through searching 5 bibliographic databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Inclusion criteria required examination of patient-related factors associated with infections among recipients of contemporary implantable, continuous flow LVADs. Key study characteristics were extracted by four independent reviewers and current literature described narratively. All analyses took place between February 2019 and May 2021. A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria. All included studies were observational, and most commonly focused on driveline infections (n = 17). Factors studied most commonly included body composition (n = 8), diabetes and other comorbidities (n = 8), and psychosocial/socio-economic factors (n = 6). Studies were frequently single-center with heterogeneity in definition of infectious outcomes as well as exposure variables. Patient race and sex did not correlate with infection risk. There was no consistent association noted between obesity, diabetes, or psychosocial/socio-economic factors and infections in LVAD recipients. Two studies reported a significant association between malnutrition and hypoalbuminemia and post implant infections. This review summarizes 31 studies that described patient-related factors associated with infection after LVAD implantation. Patient related comorbidities, especially body composition and diabetes, were most commonly evaluated, but were not consistently associated with infections after LVAD implantation.

Pre-operative atrial fibrillation and early right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular failure (RVF) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Atrial fibrillation (AF) is known for its deleterious effects on cardiac function and hemodynamics. The association of pre-operative AF with the risk of early post-LVAD RVF has not been well described.

METHOD

A comprehensive literature search was performed through April, 9 2021. Cohort studies comparing the risk of post-operative RVF and/or need for right ventricular assist device (RVAD) after LVAD in patients with or without AF were included. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and I² statistic were calculated using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the analysis. Post-operative RVF was reported in 5 studies (1,841 patients) and RVAD use was reported in 4 studies (1,355 patients). There is a non-significant trend toward a higher risk of post-operative RVF in the AF group (pooled OR=1.25, 95%CI=0.99-1.58). No significant association between AF and RVAD use is noted (pooled OR=1.17, 95%CI=0.82-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative AF is not significantly associated with higher risks of post-operative RVF and RVAD use after LVAD implantation, although the trend toward higher post-operative RVF is observed in patients with pre-operative AF. Additional research using a larger study population is warranted to better understand the association of pre-operative AF and the development of post-LVAD RVF.

Insight into Atrial Fibrillation in LVAD Patients: From Clinical Implications to Prognosis

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), whether for destination therapy or bridge to transplantation, has gained increasing validation in recent years in patients with advanced heart failure. Arrhythmias can be the most challenging variables in the management of such patients but the main attention has always been focused on ventricular arrhythmias given the detrimental impact on mortality. Nevertheless, atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disorder associated with advanced heart failure and may therefore characterize the LVADs' pre- and postimplantation periods. Indeed, the consequences of AF in the population suffering from standard heart failure may require a more comprehensive evaluation in the presence of or in sight of an LVAD, making the AF clinical management in these patients potentially complex. Several studies have been based on this subject with different and often conflicting results, leaving many questions unresolved. The purpose of this review is to summarize the main pieces of evidence about the clinical impact of AF in LVAD patients, underlining the main implications in terms of hemodynamics, thromboembolic risk, bleeding and prognosis. Therapeutic considerations about the clinical management of these patients are also made according to the latest evidence.

Impact of Atrial Fibrillation on In-Hospital Mortality and Thromboembolic Complications after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

The association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and thromboembolic (TE) complications in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients is controversial, and there is paucity of large-scale data evaluating the impact of AF on early outcomes after device implantation. Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified hospitalizations where patients underwent LVAD implantation from 2010 to 2015. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of AF on in-hospital outcomes. A total of 18,378 patients (41.7% with AF) underwent LVAD implantation. Patients with AF were older (59.9 vs. 54.0 years, p < 0.001), more commonly male (79.9 vs. 74.1%, p < 0.001), and had a greater burden of comorbidities as measured by the Elixhauser comorbidity index (7.2 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). Patients with AF had less incidence of ischemic stroke (3.1 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.04, OR 0.68), hemorrhagic stroke (1.0 vs. 2.4%, p = 0.006, OR 0.43), and other systemic embolism (1.8 vs. 3.7%, p = 0.01, OR 0.55). There was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding requiring transfusion between AF and no AF cohorts (29.3 vs. 24.2%, p = 0.09, OR 1.15). LOS was shorter in patients with AF (32.9 vs. 36.7 mean days, p < 0.001). Patients with AF had lower in-hospital mortality (8.9 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001, OR 0.48). In a large real-world US cohort of patients undergoing LVAD implantation, a diagnosis of AF was common among device recipients. After adjustment for demographics and comorbidities, AF was associated with reduced TE events and in-hospital mortality.

Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Preoperative Atrial Fibrillation on Outcomes After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

The effect of preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) on clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains uncertain. We sought to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of LVAD implantation in AF patients. Medline and Scopus were searched for studies that assessed the effect of preoperative AF on clinical outcomes in patients who underwent LVAD implantation. Outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding. Estimates were combined using random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. In this meta-analysis of 7 studies including 5,658 patients, preoperative AF was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality at 30 days (RR = 0.84 [0.51, 1.37]; p = 0.49; I² = 0%), 6 months (RR = 1.17 [0.96, 1.14]; p = 0.11; I² = 21%), 1 year (RR = 1.16 [0.84, 1.60]; p = 0.37; I² = 53%) and 2 years (RR = 1.14 [0.96, 1.36]; p = 0.12; I² = 23%). Preoperative AF did not increase the risk of thromboembolism (RR = 0.86 [0.38, 1.92]; p = 0.71; I² = 26%), pump thrombosis (RR = 1.22 [0.88, 1.68]; p = 0.23; I² = 49%), stroke (RR = 1.02 [0.87, 1.19]; p = 0.79; I² = 11%), or major bleeding (RR = 0.86 [0.38, 1.92]; p = 0.71; I² = 26%) after LVAD implantation. However, AF was associated with significantly increased risk of gastro-intestinal bleeding in patients receiving LVADs (RR = 1.27 [1.05, 1.55]; p = 0.014; I² = 0%). In conclusion, this meta-analysis reports a significantly increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in LVADs recipients having concomitant AF. However, AF had no significant effect on all-cause mortality, stroke, or thromboembolic events in these patients. Further well-conducted studies are needed to validate these results.

Implication of Preoperative Existence of Atrial Fibrillation on Hemocompatibility-Related Adverse Events During Left Ventricular Assist Device Support

BACKGROUND

Hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) are substantial issues in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with worse prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF), but its effect on HRAEs following LVAD implantation remain uncertain.Methods and Results:Data from the Japanese Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support registry of consecutive patients who received HeartMate II LVADs and were followed for 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Among 190 patients, 23 had AF and 167 had sinus rhythm. The AF group had comparable baseline characteristics with the non-AF group except for their higher age (53 vs. 42 years, P<0.001). Following LVAD implantation, most cases of AF (73%) persisted. Antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation therapy, and LVAD speed following LVAD implantation were comparable between groups (P>0.05 for all). The 1-year survival free from HRAEs was comparable between groups (83% vs. 76%, P=0.52). Event rates of the breakdown of HRAEs were comparable between groups except for a relatively higher rate of surgically managed pump thrombosis in the AF group (0.16 vs. 0.04, incidence rate ratio 3.75, 95% confidence interval 0.87-16.1, P=0.075). These trends still remained with propensity score-matched comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

Existence of AF had no effect on the development of HRAEs following LVAD implantation. The need to aggressively treat AF before or after LVAD implantation needs further investigation.