Central Extracorporeal Life Support With Left Ventricular Decompression to Berlin Heart Excor: A Reliable “Bridge to Bridge” Strategy in Crash and Burn Patients

Rescue extracorporeal life support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device

BACKGROUND

The ideal timing of a durable assist device implantation in patients with end-stage heart failure presenting with INTERMACS profile I is still controversial. The data on extracorporeal life support (ECLS) bridge to durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in these patients is limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of 35 patients in acute cardiogenic shock (CS) who, between December 2013 and September 2020, were bridged with ECLS to durable LVAD. The mean age was 52.3 ± 12.0 years. The primary endpoints of this study were in-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality. The secondary endpoint was the development of any postoperative adverse events and other characteristics during the follow-up period. We also assessed the impact of the rescue ECLS on the recovery of the end-organ function.

RESULTS

In-hospital, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year survival was 65.6%, 75.9%, 69.2%, and 62.7% respectively. The median time on ECLS was 7 days (IQR 5.0-13.0). We observed a high incidence of a severe right heart failure (22.9%), acute kidney injury on dialysis (68.6%), and respiratory failure (77.1%). Bridge with ECLS provided a significant recovery of liver and kidney function prior to durable LVAD implantation.

CONCLUSION

The concept of bridging patients presenting in end-stage heart failure and cardiogenic shock with ECLS prior to durable LVAD implantation is a feasible method to ensure acceptable survival rates and significant recovery of the end-organ function.

Durable circulatory support with a paracorporeal device as an option for pediatric and adult heart failure patients

OBJECTIVES

Not all patients in need of durable mechanical circulatory support are suitable for a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. We describe patient populations who were treated with the paracorporeal EXCOR, including children with small body sizes, adolescents with complex congenital heart diseases, and adults with biventricular failure.

METHODS

Information on clinical data, echocardiography, invasive hemodynamic measurements, and surgical procedures were collected retrospectively. Differences between various groups were compared.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, a total of 50 patients (21 children and 29 adults) received an EXCOR as bridge to heart transplantation or myocardial recovery. The majority of patients had heart failure compatible with Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profile 1. At year 5, the overall survival probability for children was 90%, and for adults 75% (P = .3). After we pooled data from children and adults, the survival probability between patients supported by a biventricular assist device was similar to those treated with a left ventricular assist device/ right ventricular assist device (94% vs 75%, respectively, P = .2). Patients with dilated cardiomyopathy had a trend toward better survival than those with other heart failure etiologies (92% vs 70%, P = .05) and a greater survival free from stroke (92% vs 64%, P = .01). Pump house exchange was performed in nine patients due to chamber thrombosis (n = 7) and partial membrane rupture (n = 2). There were 14 cases of stroke in eleven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite severe illness, patient survival on EXCOR was high, and the long-term overall survival probability following heart transplantation and recovery was advantageous. Treatment safety was satisfactory, although still hampered by thromboembolism, mechanical problems, and infections.

Impact of preoperative extracorporeal life support on left ventricular assist device outcomes: A comparative study

Background:

To investigate whether preoperative short-term extracorporeal life support therapy in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation has an impact on the outcome regarding survival and adverse events.

Methods:

Between January 2011 and May 2018, 100 consecutive patients received HeartMate II, HeartWare, or HeartMate III for end-stage heart failure. Mean age was 64.2 ± 10.3 years. Three patient groups were identified: without preoperative extracorporeal life support (non-extracorporeal life support group, n = 80), with preoperative extracorporeal life support due to postcardiotomy shock after conventional cardiac surgery (postcardiotomy shock group, n = 9), and with preoperative extracorporeal life support without previous surgery (non-postcardiotomy shock group, n = 11). The primary endpoint was overall survival after device implantation. Secondary endpoints were adverse events during the follow-up period.

Results:

Survival was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.05): 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year survival rates were 85%, 68%, and 61% for non-extracorporeal life support group; 44%, 22%, and 22% for postcardiotomy shock group; and 45%, 27%, and 24% for non-postcardiotomy shock group, respectively. Furthermore, in both extracorporeal life support groups (postcardiotomy shock and non-postcardiotomy shock), there were a higher incidence (p < 0.05) of postoperative right heart failure (30% vs 66.7% vs 54.5%), acute renal failure requiring dialysis (20% vs 77.8% vs 54.5%), and respiratory failure (31.3% vs 88.9% vs 81.8%).

Conclusion:

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with prior extracorporeal life support appears to have a worse outcome regarding survival, right heart failure, renal and respiratory dysfunction (p < 0.05). Future studies have to be done to evaluate the outcome after extracorporeal life support bridge pre-left ventricular assist device, especially as ultima ratio in postcardiotomy shock patients.

Artificial Organs 2017: A Year in Review

In this Editor's Review, articles published in 2017 are organized by category and summarized. We provide a brief reflection of the research and progress in artificial organs intended to advance and better human life while providing insight for continued application of these technologies and methods. Artificial Organs continues in the original mission of its founders "to foster communications in the field of artificial organs on an international level." Artificial Organs continues to publish developments and clinical applications of artificial organ technologies in this broad and expanding field of organ Replacement, Recovery, and Regeneration from all over the world. Peer-reviewed Special Issues this year included contributions from the 12th International Conference on Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Systems and Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Perfusion edited by Dr. Akif Undar, Artificial Oxygen Carriers edited by Drs. Akira Kawaguchi and Jan Simoni, the 24th Congress of the International Society for Mechanical Circulatory Support edited by Dr. Toru Masuzawa, Challenges in the Field of Biomedical Devices: A Multidisciplinary Perspective edited by Dr. Vincenzo Piemonte and colleagues and Functional Electrical Stimulation edited by Dr. Winfried Mayr and colleagues. We take this time also to express our gratitude to our authors for offering their work to this journal. We offer our very special thanks to our reviewers who give so generously of time and expertise to review, critique, and especially provide meaningful suggestions to the author's work whether eventually accepted or rejected. Without these excellent and dedicated reviewers the quality expected from such a journal could not be possible. We also express our special thanks to our Publisher, John Wiley & Sons for their expert attention and support in the production and marketing of Artificial Organs. We look forward to reporting further advances in the coming years.

Clinical outcomes of temporary mechanical circulatory support as a direct bridge to heart transplantation: a nationwide Spanish registry

BACKGROUND

In Spain, listing for high-urgent heart transplantation is allowed for critically ill candidates not weanable from temporary mechanical circulatory support (T-MCS). We sought to analyse the clinical outcomes of this strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a case-by-case, retrospective review of clinical records of 291 adult patients listed for high-urgent heart transplantation under temporary devices from 2010 to 2015 in 16 Spanish institutions. Survival after listing and adverse clinical events were studied. At the time of listing, 169 (58%) patients were supported on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO), 70 (24%) on temporary left ventricular assist devices (T-LVAD) and 52 (18%) on temporary biventricular assist devices (T-BiVAD). Seven patients transitioned from VA-ECMO to temporary ventricular assist devices while on the waiting list. Mean time on T-MCS was 13.1 ± 12.6 days. Mean time from listing to transplantation was 7.6 ± 8.5 days. Overall, 230 (79%) patients were transplanted and 54 (18.6%) died during MCS. In-hospital postoperative mortality after transplantation was 33.3%, 11.9% and 26.2% for patients bridged on VA-ECMO, T-LVAD and T-BiVAD, respectively (P = 0.008). Overall survival from listing to hospital discharge was 54.4%, 78.6% and 55.8%, respectively (P = 0.002). T-LVAD support was independently associated with a lower risk of death over the first year after listing (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.92). Patients treated with VA-ECMO showed the highest incidence rate of adverse clinical events associated with T-MCS.

CONCLUSION

Temporary devices may be used to bridge critically ill candidates directly to heart transplantation in a setting of short waiting list times, as is the case of Spain. In our series, bridging with T-LVAD was associated with more favourable outcomes than bridging with T-BiVAD or VA-ECMO.