Native arteriovenous fistula placement in three patients after implantation of a left ventricular assist device with non-pulsatile blood flow

Native Arteriovenous Fistula Creation in Patients With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Case Report and a Narrative Review

Worsening of kidney function after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is common, and many patients reaching end-stage kidney disease require long-term dialysis. Permanent vascular access in a patient with LVAD remains a clinical dilemma. There is a theoretical concern about the maturation of the arteriovenous fistula in a patient with LVAD due to the absence of a pulsatile flow in these patients. We described a case of successful creation of a left brachial-cephalic AVF in a patient with continuous flow LVAD (Abbott's HeartMate 3TM), which was used for dialysis without issue.

Successful Use of Arteriovenous Graft for Hemodialysis Access After Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement

Kidney replacement therapy is required in up to one-third of patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. A subset of these patients requires long-term maintenance hemodialysis and therefore needs durable vascular access but the ideal access in such patients has not been established. We present a series of 3 patients in whom arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) were successfully used for long-term kidney replacement therapy after LVAD placement. The maximum time from AVG placement to first successful AVG use was 40 days, and the longest AVG use duration was more than 2 years. 2 patients required AVG excision due to infection but both had successful placement of a second AVG. Total time on kidney replacement therapy was 993, 1,055, and 956 days for the 3 cases, of which dialysis catheter use was required for only 23%, 6.5%, and 27%, respectively. These cases suggest that AVG placement is a viable option for dialysis access in patients with LVADs.

Ventricular Assist Devices and Chronic Kidney Replacement Therapy: Technology and Outcomes

Heart failure and kidney failure are very common conditions, precipitating and exacerbating each other. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent a relatively new technology for treatment of advanced heart failure. Kidney dysfunction, if present, makes candidate selection for LVADs challenging and contributes to multiple complications while the patients are on an LVAD support. Although kidney function generally improves after LVAD implantation, some patients develop acute and then chronic kidney disease sometimes requiring kidney replacement therapies (KRTs). Overall, chronic KRT in LVAD recipients is feasible and well tolerated, but routine technique of blood pressure monitoring should be adjusted to the continuous blood flow. Both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis can be used. Unique challenges for chronic KRT posed by the presence of LVAD are discussed in this review.

Trends, Outcomes, and Readmissions Among Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients with Acute Kidney Injury Requiring Hemodialysis

Although renal function may improve after left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) implantation, acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis (HD) therapy can occur postoperatively. We used data from the National Readmissions Database to calculate annual rates of in-hospital outcomes and readmissions among patients who underwent implantation and developed acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring hemodialysis (HD) for years 2012-2015. We identified 178 (weighted 469) patients with AKI requiring HD after LVAD implantation. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher among LVAD recipients who required HD for AKI compared with those who did not (42.38% vs. 8.38%, p < 0.001). Rates of in-hospital mortality (from 52.1% in 2012 to 33.9% in 2014, p = 0.046) and length of stay (from 60.3 days in 2012 to 47.1 days in 2014, p = 0.003) decreased significantly, whereas there was a trend toward reduced hospital cost (from $320,414 in 2012 to $267,285 in 2014, p = 0.076) during the study period. However, postoperative bleeding increased significantly (p = 0.01). Acute kidney injury requiring HD after implantation was not associated with significantly higher rates of readmissions compared with LVAD recipients without AKI on HD, after adjustment for clinical and hospital characteristics (41.4% vs. 30.5%; odds ratio 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85-1.95; P = 0.239). However, 5.42% of these patients required maintenance hemodialysis in readmissions. In-hospital mortality and length of stay are decreasing but remain unacceptably high in patients requiring HD for AKI after LVAD implantation but remain higher than LVAD recipients without AKI on HD. A minority of these patients who survive hospital discharge require maintenance hemodialysis.

Considerations for Long-Term Dialysis Access in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices

BACKGROUND

Renal dysfunction, requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) is commonly encountered in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Continuous flow LVAD (CFLVAD) is the most widely used device. Nonpulsatile blood flow begets special hemodynamic changes. This poses a unique challenge in choosing a long-term dialysis access for patients with CFLVAD where life expectancy is limited.

METHODS

A 61-year-old man with an implanted CFLVAD and renal dysfunction receiving intermittent RRT through a nontunneled dialysis catheter had progressed to dialysis-dependent renal failure. He was referred to us for a permanent hemodialysis access.

RESULTS

The patient underwent a right brachio-brachial arterio-venous graft (AVG) placement. The graft was successfully cannulated for hemodialysis on postoperative day 15. On regular follow-up at 18 months, the graft was still functional.

CONCLUSIONS

Dialysis access for patients on LVAD is an exceptional management problem owing to both altered physiology and guarded overall prognosis. We recommend the use of AVG as a convenient and durable option-facilitating early cannulation and expediting freedom from indwelling catheters that may lead to catastrophic consequences. This should limit the need for secondary interventions, hospitalization, and cost, thus improving quality of life.

Heart failure management in dialysis patients: Many treatment options with no clear evidence

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) impacts approximately 20% of dialysis patients and is associated with high mortality rates. Key issues discussed in this review of HFrEF management in dialysis include dialysis modality choice, vascular access, dialysate composition, pharmacological therapies, and strategies to reduce sudden cardiac death, including the use of cardiac devices. Peritoneal dialysis and more frequent or longer duration of hemodialysis may be better tolerated due to slower ultrafiltration rates, leading to less intradialytic hypotension and better volume control; dialysate cooling and higher dialysate calcium may also have benefits. While high-quality evidence exists for many drug classes in the non-dialysis population, dialysis patients were excluded from major trials, and only limited data exist for many medications in kidney failure patients. Despite limited evidence, beta blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use is common in dialysis. Similarly, devices such as implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy that have proven benefits in non-dialysis HFrEF patients have not consistently been beneficial in the limited dialysis studies. The use of leadless pacemakers and subcutaneous ICDs can mitigate future hemodialysis access limitations. Additional research is critical to address knowledge gaps in treating maintenance dialysis patients with HFrEF.

Maturation of arteriovenous fistulas in patients with ventricular assist devices

OBJECTIVE

Postoperative renal dysfunction necessitating hemodialysis after implantation of ventricular assist devices presents a challenge with respect to establishment of hemodialysis access. Lack of pulsatile flow has led to concerns that arteriovenous fistulas will not mature. This study aims to evaluate arteriovenous fistula as a method of hemodialysis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a ventricular assist device between 1988 and 2016 with a subsequent need for hemodialysis were identified. Retrospective data were collected for patients requiring hemodialysis through an arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft. Access flow rates and duration of patency are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were identified (10 required long-term hemodialysis, 5 via arteriovenous fistula, 1 via arteriovenous graft). All six patients receiving long-term hemodialysis access were on continuous-flow ventricular assist devices. Brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistulas were performed in all arteriovenous fistula patients, and the average preoperative vein diameter was 4.1 ± 0.9 mm. On 30-day follow-up, the average flow rate was 1262 ± 643 mL/min (880-2220). In arteriovenous fistula patients, one died at 30 days, one arteriovenous fistula required ligation for steal syndrome at 5 months, and one was abandoned after 10.7 months for low flow. Of remaining fistulas, one was converted to an arteriovenous graft at 1.7 years for malfunction (with 5.3 month patency), and one remains open at 4.0 years.

CONCLUSION

Arteriovenous fistulas should be considered in selected patients with ventricular assist devices as a means of long-term hemodialysis access to avoid use of catheters. Maturation and usage of primary arteriovenous fistulas is possible despite lack of pulsatile flow.

Predictors and Outcomes of Renal Replacement Therapy After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the frequency and outcomes of patients requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) early after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined use of in-hospital RRT and outcomes in consecutive adults who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation from February 15, 2007, through August 8, 2017. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of RRT. The associations of RRT with outcomes were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Of 354 patients who underwent LVAD implantation, 54 (15%) required in-hospital RRT. Patients receiving RRT had higher preoperative Charlson Comorbidity Index values (median, 5 vs 4; P=.03), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores (mean, 19.0 vs 14.5; P<.001), right atrial pressure (mean, 19.1 vs 13.4 mm Hg; P<.001), and estimated 24-hour urine protein levels (median, 357 vs 174 mg; P<.001) and lower preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (median, 43 vs 57 mL/min; P<.001) and measured GFR using ¹²⁵I-iothalamate clearance (median, 33 vs 51 mL/min; P=.001) than those who did not require RRT. Approximately 40% of patients with eGFR less than 45 mL/min/1.73 m² and 24-hour urine protein level greater than 400 mg required RRT vs 6% with eGFR greater than45 mL/min/1.73 m² and without significant proteinuria. Lower preoperative eGFR, higher estimated 24-hour urine protein level, higher right atrial pressure, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass time were independent predictors of RRT after LVAD implantation. Of patients requiring in-hospital RRT, 18 (33%) had renal recovery, 18 (33%) required outpatient hemodialysis, and 18 (33%) died before hospital discharge. After median (Q1, Q3) follow-up of 24.3 (8.9, 49.6) months, RRT was associated with increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.86; 95% CI, 1.90-4.33; P<.001) and gastrointestinal bleeding (adjusted HR, 4.47; 95% CI, 2.57-7.75; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

In-hospital RRT is associated with poor prognosis after LVAD. A detailed preoperative assessment of renal function before LVAD may be helpful in risk stratification and patient selection.

Arteriovenous fistula creation in a patient without a pulse: Vascular access in patients with left ventricular assist devices

Left ventricular assist devices are used in heart failure patients as bridge to transplantation or increasingly as a destination therapy. These patients frequently have renal dysfunction and many reach end-stage renal failure. If haemodialysis is required, minimization of infection risk is essential. Arteriovenous grafts have been recommended for these patients due to hypothetical concerns regarding fistula maturation due to continuous flow. A case is described where a brachiocephalic arteriovenous fistula was successfully formed and used for dialysis without issue. This is one case of a small number in the literature where arteriovenous fistulas have been used in left ventricular assist device patients and it appears that concerns are unfounded and good outcomes have been reported. It would appear from this experience that approaches to vascular access for dialysis in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices are in accordance with vascular access guidelines and standard practice.

Implantable Ventricular Assist Device Use and Outcomes in People With End-Stage Renal Disease

Background

People with end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) are at risk for advanced heart failure, but little is known about use and outcomes of durable mechanical circulatory support in this setting. We examined use and outcomes of implantable ventricular assist devices (VADs) in a national ESRD cohort.

Methods and Results

We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who underwent implantable VAD placement from 2006 to 2014. We examined in‐hospital and 1‐year mortality, all‐cause and cause‐specific hospitalizations, and heart/kidney transplantation outcomes. We investigated as predictors demographic factors, time‐period of VAD implantation, primary or post‐cardiotomy implantation, and duration of ESRD before VAD implantation. We identified 96 people with ESRD who underwent implantable VAD placement. At time of VAD implantation, 74 (77.1%) were receiving hemodialysis, 10 (10.4%) were receiving peritoneal dialysis and 12 (12.5%) had renal transplant. Time from incident ESRD to VAD implantation was median 4.0 (interquartile range 1.1, 8.2) years. Mortality during the implantation hospitalization was 40.6%. Within 1 year of implantation 61.5% of people had died. On multivariable analysis, males had half the mortality risk of females. Lower mortality risk was also seen with VAD implantation in a primary setting, and with more recent year of implantation, but these results did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusions

Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD are undergoing durable VAD implantation, often several years after incident ESRD, although in low numbers. Mortality is high among these patients, highlighting the need for investigations to improve treatment selection and management.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices and the Kidney

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are common and implantation carries risk of AKI. LVADs are used as a bridge to heart transplantation or as destination therapy. Patients with refractory heart failure that develop chronic cardiorenal syndrome and CKD often improve after LVAD placement. Nevertheless, reversibility of CKD is hard to predict. After LVAD placement, significant GFR increases may be followed by a late return to near baseline GFR levels, and in some patients, a decline in GFR. In this review, we discuss changes in GFR after LVAD placement, the incidence of AKI and associated mortality after LVAD placement, the management of AKI requiring RRT, and lastly, we review salient features about cardiorenal syndrome learned from the LVAD experience. In light of the growing number of patients using LVADs as a destination therapy, it is important to understand the effect of these devices on the kidney. Additional research and long-term data are required to better understand the relationship between the LVAD and the kidney.