Combining Minimally Invasive Surgery With Ultra-Fast-Track Anesthesia in HeartMate 3 Patients: A Pilot Study

Pressure-dimension index and left ventricular sphericity index following HeartMate II and HeartMate 3 implantation

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the changes in the left ventricle (LV) and right ventricle (RV) geometry and performance after the implantation of HeartMate II (HMII) and HeartMate 3 (HM3). In addition, we investigated whether the echocardiographic parameters LV sphericity index (LVSI) and the novel pressure-dimension index (PDI) can predict post-operative right ventricular failure (RVF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2020, 46 patients [HMII (n = 22) and HM3 (n = 24)] met the study's criteria and had echocardiography tests pre-operatively, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. The LVSI and PDI were calculated together with the standard LV and RV echocardiographic parameters. The mean follow-up was 24 ± 7 months. In both groups, the LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) significantly decreased 12 months post-operatively compared with the pre-operative values (HMII: 6.4 ± 1.4 cm vs. 5.7 ± 0.9 cm, P = 0.040; HM3: 6.7 ± 1.3 cm vs. 5.5 ± 0.9 cm, P < 0.01, respectively). RV function 12 months post-operatively was better in the HM3 group than in the HMII group, as indicated by a significantly higher RV fractional area change (RVFAC) in the HM3 group than in the HMII group 12 months post-operatively (35 ± 12% vs. 26 ± 16%, P = 0.039), significantly higher tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) in the HM3 group 12 months post-operatively compared with the HMII group (13.9 ± 1.9 mm vs. 12.0 ± 2.1 mm, P = 0.002), and the tissue Doppler estimated tricuspid annular systolic velocity (TASV) was also significantly higher in the HM3 group 12 months post-operatively compared with the HMII group (11.5 ± 2.7 mm/s vs. 9.9 ± 1.5 mm/s, P = 0.020). The LVSI value was significantly higher 12 months post-operatively in the HMII group than in the HM3 group (1.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.8 ± 0.2, P = 0.001, respectively), indicating worse geometric changes. The PDI decreased 12 months post-operatively in the HM3-group compared with the baseline (3.4 ± 1.4 mmHg/cm2 vs. 2.0 ± 0.8 mmHg/cm2, P < 0.001). In the univariate and multivariate analyses, only the pre-operative PDI was a predictor of post-operative RVF [odds ratio: 3.84 (95% CI: 1.53-18.16, P = 0.022)]. The area under the curve for pre-operative PDI was 0.912. The 2 year survival was significantly better in the HM3 group (log-rank, P = 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

The design of HM3 offered better geometrical preservation of the LV and enabled normal PDI values, leading to improved RV function, as indicated by better RVFAC, TAPSE, and TASV values. The use of pre-operative PDI as an additional tool for established risk scores might offer a better pre-operative predictor of RVF.

Biventricular assist devices and total artificial heart: Strategies and outcomes

In contrast to the advanced development of the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy for advanced heart failure, the mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with biventricular assist device (BVAD) and total artificial heart (TAH) options remain challenging. The treatment strategy of BVAD and TAH therapy largely depends on the support duration. For example, an extracorporeal centrifugal pump, typically referred to as a temporary surgical extracorporeal right ventricular assist device, is implanted for the short term with acute right ventricular failure following LVAD implantation. Meanwhile, off-label use of a durable implantable LVAD is a strategy for long-term right ventricular support. Hence, this review focuses on the current treatment strategies and clinical outcomes based on each ventricle support duration. In addition, the issue of heart failure post-heart transplantation (post-HT) is explored. We will discuss MCS therapy options for post-HT recipients.

Optimal, Early Postoperative Management of Cardiac Transplant and Durable Left Ventricular Assist Recipients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Summarize developments in the early postoperative care of patients undergoing cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation. Provide a practical approach with personal insights to highly complex patients at risk for prolonged hospitalization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advancements in technology allow for percutaneous mechanical circulatory support of both the right and left ventricles either isolated or combined via subclavian and neck vessels. Since the adult heart allocation system has been changed to reduce waitlist mortality, the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support has increased. This has influenced preoperative optimization by enabling ambulation and majorly changed postoperative strategy. New doors have been opened for a multidisciplinary approach to facilitate rapid weaning of inotropic medications, limitation of sedation, early liberation from mechanical ventilation, and mobilization. Individualized percutaneous mechanical circulatory support offers new possibilities for the early postoperative management of highly complex patients undergoing cardiac transplantation or durable left ventricular assist device implantation.

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.

Mechanical circulatory support devices and treatment strategies for right heart failure

The importance of right heart failure (RHF) treatment is magnified over the years due to the increased risk of mortality. Additionally, the multifactorial origin and pathophysiological mechanisms of RHF render this clinical condition and the choices for appropriate therapeutic target strategies remain to be complex. The recent change in the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation criteria of heart transplant may have impacted for the number of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), but LVADs still have been widely used to treat advanced heart failure, and 4.1 to 7.4% of LVAD patients require a right ventricular assist device (RVAD). In addition, patients admitted with primary left ventricular failure often need right ventricular support. Thus, there is unmet need for temporary or long-term support RVAD implantation exists. In RHF treatment with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices, the timing of the intervention and prediction of duration of the support play a major role in successful treatment and outcomes. In this review, we attempt to describe the prevalence and pathophysiological mechanisms of RHF origin, and provide an overview of existing treatment options, strategy and device choices for MCS treatment for RHF.