Hemodynamics of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures at LVAD implantation

Concomitant tricuspid valve surgery in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to investigate the effect of concomitant tricuspid valve surgery (TVS) during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation due to the controversy over the clinical outcomes of concomitant TVS in patients undergoing LVAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMbase from the inception to 1 August 2023. Studies comparing outcomes in adult patients undergoing concomitant TVS during LVAD implantation (TVS group) and those who did not (no-TVS group) were included. The primary outcomes were right heart failure (RHF), right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation, and early mortality. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, and a two-tailed P <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, and 16 of them were involved in the meta-analysis, with 660 patients in the TVS group and 1291 in the no-TVS group. Patients in the TVS group suffered from increased risks of RHF [risk ratios (RR)=1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70, P =0.04; I2 =38%, pH =0.13), RVAD implantation (RR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.11, P =0.003; I2 =0%, pH =0.74), and early mortality (RR=1.61, 95% CI: 1.07-2.42, P =0.02; I2 =0%, pH =0.75). Besides, the increased risk of RHF holds true in patients with moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation (RR=1.36, 95% CI: 1.04-1.78, P =0.02). TVS was associated with a prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time. No significant differences in acute kidney injury, reoperation requirement, hospital length of stay, or ICU stay were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant TVS failed to show benefits in patients undergoing LVAD, and it was associated with increased risks of RHF, RVAD implantation, and early mortality.

Concurrent valvular procedures during left ventricular assist device implantation and outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 trial portfolio

BACKGROUND

Correction of valvular disease is often undertaken during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with uncertain benefit. We analyzed clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott) LVAD implantation in those with various concurrent valve procedures (HM3+VP) with those with an isolated LVAD implant (HM3 alone).

METHODS

The study included 2200 patients with HM3 implanted within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial portfolio who underwent 820 concurrent procedures among which 466 (21.8%) were HM3+VP. VPs included 101 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid; 85 patients had multiple VPs. Perioperative complications, major adverse events, and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent HM3+VP had higher-acuity Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (1-2: 41% vs 31%) compared with no VPs (P < .05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124 vs 76 minutes; P < .0001) and hospital length of stay (20 vs 18 days; P < .0001) were longer in HM3+VP. A higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs 23.8%), and right heart failure (41.5% vs 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP at 0 to 30 days (P < .01), with no difference in 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%) or 2-year survival (81.7% vs 80.8%). Analysis of individual VP showed no differences in survival compared to HM3 alone. No differences were noted among patients with either significant mitral (moderate or worse) or tricuspid (moderate or worse) regurgitation with or without corrective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent VPs, commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, with no effect on short- and long-term survival. There is sufficient equipoise to consider a randomized trial on the benefit of commonly performed VPs (such as mitral or tricuspid regurgitation correction), during LVAD implantation.

Right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: a persistent problem

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an option for bridge-to-transplant or destination therapy for patients with end-stage heart failure. Right heart failure (RHF) remains a complication after LVAD implantation that portends high morbidity and mortality, despite advances in LVAD technology. Definitions of RHF vary, but generally include the need for inotropic or pulmonary vasodilator support, or potential right ventricular (RV) mechanical circulatory support. This review covers the complex pathophysiology of RHF related to underlying myocardial dysfunction, interventricular dependence, and RV afterload, as well as treatment strategies to curtail this challenging problem.

Differentiated impact of pulmonary hypertension on outcome after left ventricular assist device implantation and tricuspid valve repair

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of pulmonary hypertension (PH) on short-term survival after LVAD implantation with or without tricuspid annuloplasty valve repair (TVr) performed to treat regurgitation and avoid RV-failure post-LVAD insertion. Data of 24 patients receiving LVAD-implantation are assessed and compared. The primary outcome is in-hospital survival. Of 24 patients studied, 17 (70.8%) survived hospital stay: age (62.2 ± 12.3 vs 66.1 ± 8.5 years), preoperative LV-EF (15.9 ± 5.3% vs 13.6 ± 3.8%) vs. non-survivors, respectively. Survivors received preoperatively Impella (35.3% vs 0%, p = 0.037), had shorter intubation time (3.3 ± 3.5 vs 11.4 ± 11.1 days, p = 0.0053) and ICU stay (12.4 ± 9.8 vs 34.3 ± 34 days, p = 0.01) versus non-survivors. Non-survivors had more severe PH (37.0 ± 9.6 vs 29.8 ± 12.2 mmHg, p = 0.044) than survivors. Linear regression analysis revealed that cardiac operations performed concomitant with LVAD implantation increased mortality in patients with severe PH (p = 0.04), whereas isolated TVr performed concomitant with LVAD implantation did not increase mortality neither in the entire patient cohort (p = 0.569) nor in patients with severe PH (p = 0.433). LVAD with TVr improved survival in patients suffering from severe PH (vs. moderate PH), however this difference did not reach the level of significance due to the small number of patients (p = 0.08). LVAD-implantation alone improved survival of patients suffering from moderate PH (p = 0.045, vs. severe PH). Surgical correction of tricuspid regurgitation concomitant or before LVAD implantation improves early survival in patients suffering from severe PH when compared to LVAD implantation alone. Patients suffering from severe PH tend to benefit more from TVr than those suffering from moderate PH.

Tricuspid surgery at the time of LVAD implant: A critique

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a common finding in patients with end stage heart failure referred for implantation of left ventricular assist devices. While functional TR frequently resolves after left ventricular unloading, patients with residual and progressive TR demonstrate increased rates of RV dysfunction and poor survival. Criteria for intervention on the tricuspid valve have focused on the degree of tricuspid annular dilatation and the severity of tricuspid regurgitant volume. The surgical decision making regarding intervention on the tricuspid valve remains obscure and historical cohort data cannot distinguish cause from effect.

Impact of concomitant cardiac valvular surgery during implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: A European registry for patients with mechanical circulatory support (EUROMACS) analysis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the clinical outcomes after cardiac valvular surgery procedures concomitant (CCPs) with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation compared to propensity score (PS) matched controls using the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) data.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2018, 2760 continuous-flow LVAD patients were identified. Of these, 533 underwent a CCP during the LVAD implant.

RESULTS

Cardiopulmonary bypass time (p < 0.001) and time for implant (p < 0.001) were both significantly longer in the LVAD+CCP group. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups from the unmatched population (15.7% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.073). Similarly, short-to-mid-term survival was similar in both groups, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 67.9%, 48.2%, and 27.7% versus 66.4%, 46.1%, and 26%, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.25). The results were similar in the PS-matched population. Hospital mortality was comparable between the two groups (18.9% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.074). The short-to-mid-term Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was similar for both groups, with 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates of 63.4%, 49.2%, and 24.7% versus 66.5%, 46%, and 25.1%, respectively (log-rank, p = 0.81). In the unmatched population, LVAD+CCP patients had longer intensive care unit (ICU) stays (p < 0.0001), longer mechanical ventilation time (p = 0.001), a higher rate of temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support (p = 0.033), and a higher rate of renal replacement therapy (n = 35, 6.6% vs. n = 89, 4.0%, p = 0.014). In the PS-matched population, the LVAD+CCP patients had longer ICU stays (p = 0.019) and longer mechanical ventilation time (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of additive valvular procedures (CCPs) does not seem to affect short-term survival, significantly, based on our registry data analysis. However, the decision to perform CCPs should be balanced with the projected type of surgery and preoperative characteristics. LVAD+CCP patients remain a delicate population and adverse device-related events should be strictly monitored and managed.

In-Hospital Outcomes of Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Concomitant Valvular Surgery

Valvular heart disease is common among left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients. However, its management at the time of LVAD implantation remains controversial. Patients who underwent LVAD implantation and concomitant aortic (AVR), mitral (MVR), or tricuspid valve (TVR) repair or replacement from 2010 to 2017 were identified using the national inpatient sample. End points were in-hospital outcomes, length of stay, and cost. Procedure-related complications were identified via ICD-9 and ICD-10 coding and analysis was performed via mixed effect models. A total of 25,171 weighted adults underwent LVAD implantation without valvular surgery, 1,329 had isolated TVR, 1,021 AVR, 377 MVR, and 615 had combined valvular surgery (411 had TVR + AVR, 115 TVR + MVR, 62 AVR + MVR, 25 AVR + MVR + TVR). During the study period, rates of AVR decreased and combined valvular surgeries increased. Patients who underwent TVR or combined valvular surgery had overall higher burden of co-morbidities than LVAD recipients with or without other valvular procedures. Postoperative bleeding was higher with AVR whereas acute kidney injury requiring dialysis was higher with TVR or combined valvular surgery. In-hospital mortality was higher with AVR, MVR, or combined surgery without differences in the rates of stroke. Length of stay did not differ significantly among groups but cost of hospitalization and nonroutine discharge rates were higher for cases of TVR and combined surgery. Approximately 1 in 9 LVAD recipients underwent concomitant valvular surgery and TVR was the most frequently performed procedure. In-hospital mortality and cost were lower among those who did not undergo valvular surgery.