Left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with a history of malignancy

Associations Between Preimplant Cancer Type and Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes: An INTERMACS Registry Analysis

We used the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database to examine whether history of a solid versus hematologic malignancy impacts outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We included LVAD recipients (2007-2017) with cancer history reported (N = 14,799, 21% female, 24% Black). Multivariate models examined the association between cancer type and post-LVAD mortality and adverse events. Competing risk analyses compared death and heart transplantation between cancer types and those without cancer in bridge-to-transplant (BTT) patients. A total of 909 (6.1%) patients had a history of cancer (4.9% solid tumor, 1.3% hematologic malignancy). Solid tumors were associated with higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-1.57), major bleeding (aHR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.00-1.32), and pump thrombosis (aHR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.09-2.13), whereas hematologic malignancies were associated with increased major infection (aHR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.14-1.80). Compared to BTT patients without a history of cancer, solid tumor patients were less likely to undergo transplantation (adjusted subdistribution HR [aSHR] = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.45-0.89) and hematologic malignancy patients were as likely to experience death (aSHR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.63-2.14) and transplantation (aSHR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.44-1.08). Cancer history and type impact post-LVAD outcomes. As LVAD utilization in cancer survivors increases, we need strategies to improve post-LVAD outcomes in these patients.

How to select a patient for LVAD

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation leads to improvement in symptoms and survival in patients with advanced heart failure. An important factor in improving outcomes post-LVAD implantation is optimal preoperative patient selection and optimization. In this review, we highlight the latest on the evaluation of patients with advanced heart failure for LVAD candidacy, including discussion of patient selection, implantation timing, laboratory and other testing considerations, and the importance of psychosocial evaluation. Such thorough evaluation by multidisciplinary team can serve to improve the outcomes of a complex group of patients with advanced heart failure being evaluated for LVAD.

Cardiotoxicity, Cardioprotection, and Prognosis in Survivors of Anticancer Treatment Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: Unmet Needs

BACKGROUND

Anticancer treatments are improving the prognosis of patients fighting cancer. However, anticancer treatments may also increase the cardiovascular (CV) risk by increasing metabolic disorders. Atherosclerosis and atherothrombosis related to anticancer treatments may lead to ischemic heart disease (IHD), while direct cardiac toxicity may induce non-ischemic heart disease. Moreover, valvular heart disease (VHD), aortic syndromes (AoS), and advanced heart failure (HF) associated with CV risk factors and preclinical CV disease as well as with chronic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction may also occur in survivors of anti-carcer treatments.

METHODS

Public electronic libraries have been searched systematically looking at cardiotoxicity, cardioprotection, CV risk and disease, and prognosis after cardiac surgery in survivors of anticancer treatments.

RESULTS

CV risk factors and disease may not be infrequent among survivors of anticancer treatments. As cardiotoxicity of established anticancer treatments has been investigated and is frequently irreversible, cardiotoxicity associated with novel treatments appears to be more frequently reversible, but also potentially synergic. Small reports suggest that drugs preventing HF in the general population may be effective also among survivors of anticancer treatments, so that CV risk factors and disease, and chronic inflammation, may lead to indication to cardiac surgery in survivors of anticancer treatments. There is a lack of substantial data on whether current risk scores are efficient to predict prognosis after cardiac surgery in survivors of anticancer treatments, and to guide tailored decision-making. IHD is the most common condition requiring cardiac surgery among survivors of anticancer treatments. Primary VHD is mostly related to a history of radiation therapy. No specific reports exist on AoS in survivors of anticancer treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to dominate cancer- and anticancer treatment-related metabolic syndromes, chronic inflammation, and endothelial dysfunction, leading to IHD, nonIHD, VHD, HF, and AoS, are as effective in survivors of anticancer treatments as in the general population. When CV diseases require cardiac surgery, survivors of anticancer treatments may be a population at specifically elevated risk, rather than affected by a specific risk factor.

Ventricular assist device support for children with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy and advanced heart failure: Perspectives gained from a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Guidance and data on ventricular assist device (VAD) support for children with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy, particularly within the first 2 years after chemotherapy, are limited.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective case series, reviewing medical records of children <18 years of age with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy and advanced heart failure (HF) who received durable VAD support.

RESULTS

Six patients met inclusion criteria-5 HeartWare™ HVAD, 1 Berlin Heart EXCOR^® . Median age at cancer diagnosis was 6 years (IQR 4.5-10 years). Median dose of anthracycline received was 540 mg/m² (IQR 450-630 mg/m² ). All patients developed HF within 1 year after initiation of cancer treatment (median 8 months, IQR 6-11.5 months) and were initiated on durable VAD support at a median of 8 months after completion of cancer treatment (IQR 3.3-43.5 months). Four patients had significant right ventricular dysfunction needing oral pulmonary vasodilator therapy, one patient had a major bleeding complication, and two patients had thromboembolic strokes while on VAD support. Median duration of VAD support was 7.5 months (IQR 3-11.3 months). Two patients underwent VAD explant due to recovery of LV function, one died due to cancer progression, and three underwent heart transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Durable VAD support should be considered as a therapeutic option for children who have advanced HF due to chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy, even within 2 years of completing cancer treatment. A multi-disciplinary approach is essential for appropriate patient selection prior to implant and to ensure comprehensive care throughout the duration of VAD support.

Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Patients With Active Malignancies

BACKGROUND

There are limited data to guide oncology and cardiology decision-making in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and concurrent active malignancy.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to describe cancer treatment approaches, complications, and survival among patients with active cancer on LVAD support in 2 tertiary heart failure and oncology programs.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, LVAD databases were reviewed to identify patients with a cancer diagnosis at the time of or after LVAD implantation. We created a 3:1 matched cohort based on age, sex, etiology of cardiomyopathy, LVAD implant strategy, and INTERMACS profile stratified by site. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival between patients with cancer and non-cancer comparators.

RESULTS

Among 1,123 patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2005 and 2019, 22 patients with LVADs with active cancer and 66 matched non-cancer comparators were identified. Median age was 62 years (range 41 to 73 years); 50% of patients with cancer were African-American, and 27% were women. Prostate cancer, followed by renal cell cancer and hematologic malignancies were the most common diagnoses. There was no significant difference in unadjusted Kaplan-Meier median survival estimates from the time of LVAD placement between patients with cancer (3.53 years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41 to 5.33) and non-cancer comparators (3.03 years; 95% CI: 1.83 to 5.26; log-rank P = 0.99). In Cox proportional hazard models, cancer diagnosis as a time-varying variable was associated with a statistically significant increase in death (hazard ratio: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.12; P = 0.04). Patients with cancer had less gastrointestinal bleeding compared with matched non-cancer comparators (P = 0.016). Other complications were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides initial feasibility and safety data and set a framework for multidisciplinary team management of patients with cancer and LVADs.