Comparative analysis of von Willebrand factor profiles after implantation of left ventricular assist device and total artificial heart

Hemocompatibility and biophysical interface of left ventricular assist devices and total artificial hearts

ABSTRACT

Over the past 2 decades, there has been a significant increase in the utilization of long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for the treatment of cardiac failure. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and total artificial hearts (TAHs) have been developed in parallel to serve as bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy solutions. Despite the distinct hemodynamic characteristics introduced by LVADs and TAHs, a comparative evaluation of these devices regarding potential complications in supported patients, has not been undertaken. Such a study could provide valuable insights into the complications associated with these devices. Although MCS has shown substantial clinical benefits, significant complications related to hemocompatibility persist, including thrombosis, recurrent bleeding, and cerebrovascular accidents. This review focuses on the current understanding of hemostasis, specifically thrombotic and bleeding complications, and explores the influence of different shear stress regimens in long-term MCS. Furthermore, the role of endothelial cells in protecting against hemocompatibility-related complications of MCS is discussed. We also compared the diverse mechanisms contributing to the occurrence of hemocompatibility-related complications in currently used LVADs and TAHs. By applying the existing knowledge, we present, for the first time, a comprehensive comparison between long-term MCS options.

In Search of the Holy Grail of Artificial Hearts: Are We There Yet?

The total artificial heart (TAH) has a long and rich history, being the product of decades of innovation, hard work, and dedication. This review examines the history of the TAH, a device that has revolutionized the treatment of end-stage biventricular heart failure. It reviews the development of the device from early concepts to the current state-of-the-art device, the SynCardia TAH, which has been implanted in over 2,000 patients worldwide. The article also discusses the challenges and successes experienced by researchers, clinicians, and patients throughout the development of TAH devices. Our focus will also be on discussing the hemostatic alterations in patients implanted with TAH and anticoagulation strategies to decrease associated thromboembolic risks. The article concludes with a look at other novel TAH devices and the future of TAH as an increasingly viable treatment for end-stage heart failure.

Toward a Standard Practice to Quantify von Willebrand Factor Degradation During Left Ventricular Assist Device Support

BACKGROUND

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) cause degradation of von Willebrand factor (VWF) multimers and bleeding. Multiple techniques exist to characterize VWF deficiency. However, a standard methodology has not been established in LVAD patients. Toward this goal, we evaluated 4 methods to quantify VWF multimers.

METHODS

We collected paired blood samples from patients (n = 48) before and after 1 week of LVAD support. After 652 ± 59 days of support, patients were classified as bleeders (≥1 bleeding episode) or nonbleeders. VWF multimers were resolved with electrophoresis and immunoblotting, the gold-standard to evaluate VWF multimers. We evaluated 4 quantification methods.

RESULTS

Each method demonstrated significant VWF degradation during LVAD support vs a paired, pre-LVAD sample (method 1, VWF length: 48 of 48 patients, -10% ± 1%, P < .0001; method 2, VWF density: 40 of 48, -34% (interquartile range, -46% to -8%), P < .0001; method 3, pre-LVAD to LVAD ratio: 46 of 48, 17 ± 5: 10 ± 1, P < .0001; method 4, LVAD/pre-LVAD index: 46 of 48, 57% (interquartile range, 50% to 73%), P < .0001). Bleeding occurred in 27 of 48 patients. Method 1 demonstrated significantly fewer VWF multimers in bleeders compared with nonbleeders (-11% ± 1% vs -8% ± 1%; P = .01). Other methods did not demonstrate this potentially important clinical relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized methodology is needed to quantify VWF multimer degradation with mechanical circulatory support devices. Novel method 1 successfully quantified the patient-specific change in VWF multimer length during LVAD support and demonstrated a difference in VWF multimers between bleeders and nonbleeders. Adoption of consensus methodology will assist to standardize patient-specific bleeding risk, inform anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, and evaluate LVAD hemocompatibility.

Platelet Mapping by Thromboelastography and Whole Blood Aggregometry in Adult Patients Supported by Mechanical Circulatory Support Device on Aspirin Therapy

Patients on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices are placed on aspirin and may require platelet function testing (PFT) to monitor the adequacy of therapy. Routine laboratory PFT is performed using whole blood aggregation (WBA) which typically has a long turnaround time (4-5 hours) and may not be readily available. By contrast, platelet mapping by thromboelastography (TPM) can provide results within 45 minutes. The objective of this study was to compare the results of TPM with WBA. We compared platelet mapping maximal amplitude (MA) by TPM with that of arachidonic acid (AA) to WBA with AA by impedance. We analyzed paired samples where both TPM and WBA were available. Of 45 paired samples, 34 were from 29 MCS patients and 11 were from non-MCS patients. When applying institutional interpretation guidelines with an MA_Activator cutoff of ≤40 mm, WBA_AA vs TPM MA_AA in non-MCS and MCS patients correlated well with an accuracy of 100 and 94.4%, respectively. MA_Activator >40 had poor correlation with an accuracy of 37.5%. Irrespective of MA_Activator value, TPM AA inhibition expressed in percent of inhibition had poor accuracy. When used with proper guidelines for interpretation, specifically when MA_Activator ≤ 40 mm, TPM is a suitable and reliable test to use for MCS patients on aspirin.

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.

Differences in von Willebrand factor function in type 2A von Willebrand disease and left ventricular assist device-induced acquired von Willebrand syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD) type 2A or acquired von Willebrand syndrome (aVWS) as a consequence of implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are both characterized by a loss of von Willebrand factor (VWF) function. Loss of VWF function is however more severe in VWD type 2A than in LVAD patients.

OBJECTIVES

To compare VWF function in patients with VWD type 2A and LVAD-induced aVWS to highlight the differences in VWF activity and to stress the importance of VWF multimer analysis for correct diagnosis of aVWS in LVAD patients.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Plasma samples from nine VWD type 2A, nine LVAD patients, and 20 healthy donors (HD) were analyzed for VWF function (VWF:CB/VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag) and loss of high molecular weight (HMW) VWF multimers.

RESULTS

A severely impaired VWF function was indeed confirmed in all VWD 2A patients. HMW VWF multimers were severely reduced compared to HD (0% [0, 12.29] vs 34.19% [31.68, 38.88] for HD, P < 0.001) and this loss was reflected by VWF:CB/VWF:Ag and VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag ratios <0.7. In contrast, VWF function was less affected in LVAD patients. Although HMW VWF multimers were reduced in all patients (20.31% [15.84, 21.71], vs 34.19% [31.68, 38.88] for HD, P < 0.001), six out of nine LVAD patients had normal VWF:CB/VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag ratios (>0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

VWF:CB/VWF:Ag or VWF:RCo/VWF:Ag analysis allows detection of impaired VWF function in VWD type 2A but not always in LVAD-induced aVWS patients. In contrast, VWF multimeric analysis allows detection of the loss of HMW VWF multimers in both groups of patients. Hence, performing VWF multimer analysis is crucial to detect aVWS in LVAD patients.

Von Willebrand disease in the elderly: clinical perspectives

Von Willebrand disease (VWD) is an inherited bleeding disorder that affects up to 1% of the population. In most cases, VWD results from a mutation in the von Willebrand Factor (VWF) gene, which alters the amount and function of VWF, a key glycoprotein in both primary and secondary hemostasis. A comprehensive analysis of patients with VWD should include VWF activity, antigen levels, platelet function, and a careful bleeding history. Treatment options include antifibrinolytics, desmopressin, and VWF replacement therapy. VWF levels fluctuate due to age, stress, environmental exposures, and pharmacologic treatment. Treatment guidelines exist to treat and prevent bleeding for patients undergoing surgery and medical procedures, but often these must be reevaluated in the setting of age-related comorbidities including cardiovascular events, venous thrombosis, and malignancy. In addition, many age-related complications are associated with a secondary acquired von Willebrand syndrome (AVWS), including malignancies, hypothyroidism, cardiovascular diseases, and cardiac replacement devices. The current literature is limited by a lack of older patients in clinical trials. Larger studies are needed to determine if age-related comorbidities affect VWD patients at different frequencies than the general elderly population. There is also a significant need for registry-based studies to evaluate many age-related comorbidities in VWD patients.