Catheter Ablation of Atrial Flutter in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device Improves Symptoms of Right Heart Failure

Drug therapy and catheter ablation for management of arrhythmias in continuous flow left ventricular assist device's patients: a Clinical Consensus Statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Failure Association of the ESC

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common with a prevalence of 20-50% at one year after LVAD implantation. Arrhythmias predispose these patients to additional risk and are associated with considerable morbidity from recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks, progressive failure of the unsupported right ventricle, and herald an increased risk of mortality. Management of patients with arrhythmias and LVAD differs in many aspects from the general population heart failure patients. These include ruling out the reversible causes of arrhythmias that in LVAD patients may include mechanical irritation from the inflow cannula and suction events. For patients with symptomatic arrhythmias refractory to medical treatment, catheter ablation might be relevant. There are specific technical and procedural challenges perceived to be unique to LVAD-related ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation such as vascular and LV access, signal filtering, catheter manoeuvrability within decompressed chambers, and electroanatomic mapping system interference. In some patients, the arrhythmogenic substrate might not be readily accessible by catheter ablation after LVAD implantation. In this regard, the peri-implantation period offers a unique opportunity to surgically address arrhythmogenic substrate and suppress future VT recurrences. This document aims to address specific aspects of the management of arrhythmias in LVAD patients focusing on anti-arrhythmic drug therapy and ablations.

Catheter Ablation for Tachyarrhythmias in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: Clinical Significance and Technical Tips

The demand for durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has been increasing worldwide in tandem with the rising population of advanced heart failure patients. Especially in cases of destination therapy, instead of bridges to transplantation, LVADs require a lifelong commitment. With the increase in follow-up periods after implantation and given the lack of donor hearts, the need for managing concomitant tachyarrhythmias has arisen. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are documented in approximately 20% to 50% of LVAD recipients during long-term device support, according to previous registries. Atrial arrhythmias, primarily atrial fibrillation, generally exhibit good hemodynamic tolerance; therefore, catheter ablation cannot be easily recommended due to the risk of a residual iatrogenic atrial septal defect that may lead to a right-to-left shunt under durable LVAD supports. The clinical impacts of ventricular arrhythmias, mainly ventricular tachycardia, may vary depending on the time periods following the index implantation. Early occurrence after the operation affects the hospitalization period and mortality; however, the late onset of ventricular tachycardia causes varying prognostic impacts on a case-by-case basis. In cases of hemodynamic instability, catheter ablation utilizing a trans-septal approach is necessary to stabilize hemodynamics. Nonetheless, in some cases originating from the intramural region or the epicardium, procedural failure may occur with the endocardial ablation. Specialized complications associated with the state of LVAD support should be carefully considered when conducting procedures. In LVAD patients, electrophysiologists, circulatory support specialists, and surgeons should collaborate as an integrated team to address the multifaceted issues related to arrhythmia management.

HFSA Expert Consensus Statement on the Medical Management of Patients on Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support

The medical management of patients supported with durable continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support encompasses pharmacologic therapies administered in the preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative and chronic LVAD support stages. As patients live longer on LVAD support, the risks of LVAD-related complications and progression of cardiovascular and other diseases increase. Using existing data from cohort studies, registries, randomized trials and expert opinion, this Heart Failure Society of America Consensus Document on the Medical Management of Patients on Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support offers best practices on the management of patients on durable MCS, focusing on pharmacological therapies administered to patients on continuous flow LVADs. While quality data in the LVAD population are few, the utilization of guideline directed heart failure medical therapies (GDMT) and the importance of blood pressure management, right ventricular preload and afterload optimization, and antiplatelet and anticoagulation regimens are discussed. Recommended pharmacologic regimens used to mitigate or treat common complications encountered during LVAD support, including arrhythmias, vasoplegia, mucocutaneous bleeding, and infectious complications are addressed. Finally, this document touches on important potential pharmacological interactions from anti-depressants, herbal and nutritional supplements of relevance to providers of patients on LVAD support.

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.

Role of the mitral valve in left ventricular assist device pathophysiology

Functional mitral regurgitation (MR) in the setting of heart failure results from progressive dilatation of the left ventricle (LV) and mitral annulus. This leads to leaflet tethering with posterior displacement. Contrary to common assumptions, MR often does not resolve with LVAD decompression of the LV alone. The negative impact of significant (moderate-severe) mitral regurgitation in the LVAD setting is becoming better recognized in terms of its harmful effect on right heart function, pulmonary vascular resistance and hospital readmissions. However, controversies remain regarding the threshold for intervention and management. At present, there are no consensus indications for the repair of significant mitral regurgitation at the time of LVAD implantation due to the conflicting data regarding potential adverse effects of MR on clinical outcomes. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of MR pathophysiology in patients supported with LVAD and potential future management strategies.

Point-of-Care Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices at the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) can be used as a bridging therapy for myocardial recovery or cardiac transplant, as well as a destination therapy for long-term support in patients with advanced heart failure. Patients with LVADs can present to the emergency department (ED) for acute deterioration and emergency physicians (EPs) must be equipped with the necessary knowledge and skill to treat this unique population.

OBJECTIVE

This review describes the role of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in the evaluation of patients with LVADs and illustrates how EPs can incorporate POCUS into the evaluation of these patients in the ED.

DISCUSSION

The clinical applications for which POCUS may be useful in patients with LVADs include hypotension or shock, dyspnea, cardiac failure, dysrhythmia, syncope, and cardiac arrest. The normal features of POCUS in patients with LVADs and the features of POCUS associated with diseased states are presented.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with LVADs have altered anatomy and physiology. Therefore, an understanding of key modifications to standard POCUS views is necessary so that EPs can use POCUS effectively in their evaluation of these patients.

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.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in left ventricular assist device: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Mechanical circulatory support such as the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has become widely implemented in the treatment of end-stage heart failure, whether as bridge-to-transplant or as destination therapy. The hemodynamic effects of arrhythmia on LVADs and its management are significant in determining the long-term outcome of these patients. Both atrial arrhythmia and ventricular arrhythmia are commonly seen after implantation of the device. There are no strict guidelines, however, on the need for intensive management of arrhythmias in LVAD. In this case report, we present a patient with new onset atrial fibrillation after LVAD implantation which leads to acute decompensating heart failure. The patient was treated with catheter ablation. The intervention demonstrated positive outcomes for this patient.

PATIENT CONCERNS

The patient was a Korean male, who presented with dyspnea, fatigue and generalized edema after persistent atrial fibrillation precipitated by implantation of the left ventricular assist device.

DIAGNOSIS

The patient was diagnosed with acute decompensating heart failure that was aggravated by recurrent atrial arrhythmia.

INTERVENTION

We attempted to relieve symptoms of right ventricular dysfunction by method of strict rhythm control in this patient. The patient underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation.

OUTCOME

The patient showed improved clinical symptoms, BNP levels, and echocardiogram parameters immediately after the procedure as well as during long term outpatient follow up.

CONCLUSION

In this case report, we present the first successful case in Korea of atrial fibrillation in LVAD treated with catheter ablation. This case suggests setting catheter ablation as a routine first-line treatment for atrial arrhythmia in LVAD patients, especially when the arrhythmia predisposes the patient at risk for decompensating heart failure.

Atrial arrhythmias in patients with left ventricular assist devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Atrial arrhythmias commonly occur in patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who require left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implantation. This review summarizes the current literature regarding the incidence, prevalence, and predictors of atrial arrhythmias in LVAD patients and its impact on the clinical outcomes. Moreover, we review the mechanisms and management strategies of atrial arrhythmias in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Atrial arrhythmias including atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia are highly prevalent in patients with advanced HFrEF before or after the LVAD implantation. Atrial arrhythmias have a significant impact on overall clinical outcome including survival, heart failure hospitalization, quality of life, thromboembolic events and resource utilization. Atrial fibrillation and other atrial arrhythmias frequently coexist in this population. In patients with atrial arrhythmias and LVAD, anticoagulation and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices should be closely monitored and managed to prevent thromboembolic events or inappropriate shocks. Rhythm and rate control strategies are comparable regarding overall clinical outcomes in this population. LVADs induce favorable atrial remodeling in patients with HFrEF.

SUMMARY

Atrial arrhythmias are highly common in LVAD patients and have significant impact on overall clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to determine optimal management and prevention of atrial arrhythmias in LVAD population.

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.

Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated with Recurrent Ventricular Arrhythmias After LVAD Implant: Incidence and Impact in a Consecutive Series

This study examined left-ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients with pre-LVAD ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) to determine the rate of recurrent post-LVAD VAs and the impact of pre-LVAD atrial fibrillation (AF) on recurrent post-LVAD VAs. Medical records of 195 consecutive LVAD patients were reviewed. Descriptive statistics were generated and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association of clinical variables with the time to recurrent VA. Forty-seven percent of 195 CHF patients who received LVAD-manifested significant VAs prior to LVAD implant (82% Heartmate II, 14% HVAD, 4% other; median follow-up = 17 months), 41% of whom manifested recurrent post-LVAD VAs. Pre-LVAD AF was associated with recurrent VAs (hazard ratio = 3.73; 95% CI 1.33, 10.48; p = 0.012). Recurrent VAs were associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio = 3.06; 95% CI 1.17, 7.98; p = 0.023). A history of AF is prevalent in over half of LVAD patients with recurrent VAs and is associated with time to recurrence of VA.

Device Therapy and Arrhythmia Management in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although these devices effectively improve survival, atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are common, predispose these patients to additional risk, and complicate patient management. However, there is no consensus on best practices for the medical management of these arrhythmias or on the optimal timing for procedural interventions in patients with refractory arrhythmias. Although the vast majority of these patients have preexisting cardiovascular implantable electronic devices or cardiac resynchronization therapy, given the natural history of heart failure, it is common practice to maintain cardiovascular implantable electronic device detection and therapies after LVAD implantation. Available data, however, are conflicting on the efficacy of and optimal device programming after LVAD implantation. Therefore, the primary objective of this scientific statement is to review the available evidence and to provide guidance on the management of atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in this unique patient population, as well as procedural interventions and cardiovascular implantable electronic device and cardiac resynchronization therapy programming strategies, on the basis of a comprehensive literature review by electrophysiologists, heart failure cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiovascular nurse specialists with expertise in managing these patients. The structure and design of commercially available LVADs are briefly reviewed, as well as clinical indications for device implantation. The relevant physiological effects of long-term exposure to continuous-flow circulatory support are highlighted, as well as the mechanisms and clinical significance of arrhythmias in the setting of LVAD support.

Incidence and Outcomes of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation After Left Ventricular Assist Device

This study sought to determine the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2013 to 2014 was conducted. Postoperative AF, survival, and thrombotic complications were evaluated after surgery. A total of 47 patients (mean age, 56.4 ± 12.5 years; 33 male) were included and followed for a median of 331 days. Within 30 days of surgery, 13 (28%) patients developed POAF at mean 7.9 ± 8.5 days. Obstructive lung disease was a predictor of POAF (p = 0.01). Postoperative AF was not associated with increased mortality, length of stay, or thrombotic complication within 30 days. Postoperative AF was predictive of recurrent new AF (24 vs. 5.5%) after 30 days of LVAD implantation. Also, POAF was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke and device thrombosis during follow-up (p = 0.01). These results show that unlike in other cardiac surgery, POAF does not have a negative impact on early postoperative morbidity or mortality. However, POAF is a predictor for future AF, ischemic stroke, and device thrombosis.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation is associated with increased morbidity and resource utilization after left ventricular assist device placement

BACKGROUND

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a known risk factor for morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery but has not been investigated in the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) population. We hypothesize that POAF will increase morbidity and resource utilization after LVAD placement.

METHODS

Records were extracted for all patients in a regional database who underwent continuous-flow LVAD placement (n = 1064, 2009-2017). Patients without a history of atrial fibrillation (n = 689) were stratified by POAF for univariate analysis. Multivariable regression models calculated the risk-adjusted association of arrhythmias on outcomes and resource utilization.

RESULTS

The incidence of new-onset POAF was 17.6%, and patients who developed POAF were older and more likely to have moderate/severe mitral regurgitation, a history of stroke, and concomitant tricuspid surgery. After risk adjustment, POAF was not associated with operative mortality or stroke but was associated with major morbidity (odds ratio [OR] 2.5 P = .0004), prolonged ventilation (OR 2.7, P < .0001), unplanned right ventricular assist device (OR 2.9, P = .01), and a trend toward renal failure (OR 2.0, P = .06). In addition, POAF was associated with greater risk-adjusted resource utilization, including discharge to a facility (OR 2.2, P = .007), an additional 4.9 postoperative days (P = .02), and 88 hours in the intensive care unit (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

POAF was associated with increased major morbidity, possibly from worsening right heart failure leading to increased renal failure and unplanned right ventricular assist device placement. This led to patients with POAF having longer intensive care unit and hospital stays and more frequent discharges to a facility.

Atrial Arrhythmias and Electroanatomical Remodeling in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

The incidence, predictors, and impact of atrial arrhythmias along with left atrial structural changes in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) remain undetermined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All patients who underwent LVAD implantation from 2008 to 2015 at the University of Chicago Medical Center were included. Electronic medical records, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, and cardiac electrical device interrogations were reviewed. The association of arrhythmias and clinical covariates with survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. A total of 331 patients were followed for a median of 330 days (range 0-2306 days). Mean age was 57.8±12.8 years, 256 participants (77.3%) were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 20±6.6%, and 124 (37.5%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy. Atrial arrhythmias (53.8%) were highly prevalent and frequently coexisted before LVAD implantation: atrial fibrillation (AF) in 45.9%, atrial flutter in 13.9%, atrial tachycardia in 6.9%, and atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia in 1.2%. New-onset AF was documented in 14 patients (7.8% of patients without prior AF) after the first 30 days with an LVAD. Increasing age, renal insufficiency, and lung disease were predictors of new-onset AF after LVAD implantation. Of patients with paroxysmal AF, 43% had no further AF after LVAD. Left atrial size and volume index improved with LVAD (P<0.005). History of persistent AF, atrial tachycardia, ventricular arrhythmia, coronary artery bypass, and low albumin were associated with decreased survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Atrial arrhythmias are significantly prevalent in patients who require LVAD and are associated with increased mortality; however, LVADs induce favorable atrial structural and electrical remodeling.

Mechanical circulatory assist devices: a primer for critical care and emergency physicians

Mechanical circulatory assist devices are now commonly used in the treatment of severe heart failure as bridges to cardiac transplant, as destination therapy for patients who are not transplant candidates, and as bridges to recovery and “decision-making”. These devices, which can be used to support the left or right ventricles or both, restore circulation to the tissues, thereby improving organ function. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are the most common support devices. To care for patients with these devices, health care providers in emergency departments (EDs) and intensive care units (ICUs) need to understand the physiology of the devices, the vocabulary of mechanical support, the types of complications patients may have, diagnostic techniques, and decision-making regarding treatment. Patients with LVADs who come to the ED or are admitted to the ICU usually have nonspecific clinical symptoms, most commonly shortness of breath, hypotension, anemia, chest pain, syncope, hemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding, jaundice, fever, oliguria and hematuria, altered mental status, headache, seizure, and back pain. Other patients are seen for cardiac arrest, psychiatric issues, sequelae of noncardiac surgery, and trauma. Although most patients have LVADs, some may have biventricular support devices or total artificial hearts. Involving a team of cardiac surgeons, perfusion experts, and heart-failure physicians, as well as ED and ICU physicians and nurses, is critical for managing treatment for these patients and for successful outcomes. This review is designed for critical care providers who may be the first to see these patients in the ED or ICU.

Impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve survival in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. However, the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) on outcomes in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) patients is not known. We sought to determine if CRT-D improved clinical outcomes in CF-LVAD patients compared with ICDs alone.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Sixty-one consecutive CF-LVAD patients with an ICD or CRT-D were evaluated. Impacts of CRT-D on mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and incidence of atrial (AA) and ventricular (VA) arrhythmias after LVAD implantation was compared with patients with ICD alone. Of the 61 LVAD patients, 31 (age 59.8 ± 16 years, 84% male) had CRT-D and 30 (age 57.2 ± 13 years, 74% male) had ICD. Before LVAD implantation, no significant differences were noted between the groups in demographic and clinical characteristics, LVAD indications, and incidence of AA and VA. Over 682 ± 45 days of LVAD support, 8 patients (25.8%) died in the CRT-D arm versus 5 (16.7%) in the ICD arm (P = .35). No differences were noted between the CRT-D and ICD groups in all-cause (96.8 vs 93.3%; P = .63) and HF (19.4 vs 26.7%; P = .78) hospitalizations, left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (6.4 ± 1.5 vs 6.2 ± 1.1 cm, P = .47), and incidence of AA (35.4% vs 33.3%; P = .80), VA (29% vs 26.6%; P = .86), and ICD shocks (22.6% vs 16.7%; P = .93). Beta-blocker and antiarrhythmic drug use after LVAD implantation was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with refractory HF who received CF-LVADs, CRT-D, compared with ICD, did not significantly improve mortality, all-cause hospitalization, LV dimensions, and incidence of AA and VA.