HeartWare left ventricular assist device thrombosis in aspirin non-responder

Medical Management of Pump-Related Thrombosis in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pump thrombosis is a dreaded complication of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). We completed a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and complications associated with medical management of LVAD thrombosis. Databases were searched using the terms "vad*" or "ventricular assist device" or "heart assist device" and "thrombus" or "thrombosis" or "thromboembolism." Of 2,383 manuscripts, 49 articles met the inclusion criteria. The risk of partial or no resolution of LVAD thrombosis did not significantly differ between thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic regimens (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-1.16). When response to therapy was evaluated based on pump type, there were no significant differences in how patients with a HeartMate II or HeartWare ventricular assist device responded to thrombolytic or nonthrombolytic treatment. Pooled risk of major bleeding in the thrombolytic group was 29% (95% CI, 0.17-0.44) and 12% (95% CI, 0.01-0.57) in the nonthrombolytic group. Odds of death did not differ between thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic regimens (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.42-3.89). Although thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic treatment similarly resolved LVAD thrombosis, major hemorrhage may be increased with the use of thrombolysis. Randomized clinical trials comparing thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic treatment of LVAD thrombosis are needed to establish the most effective and safe option for patients who are not surgical candidates.

Thrombosis in Left Ventricular Assistance Device with Centrifugal Technology: Is Early Thrombolysis a Better Solution?

Background

Continuous flow left ventricular assistance devices (CF-LVADs) have revolutionized the treatment of advanced heart failure. Pump replacement for thrombosis is a high-risk procedure with a high perioperative mortality rate with possible recurrence. We aim to summarize our experience using a conservative approach with medical therapy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed records of patients who experienced pump thrombosis after LVAD implantation with HeartWare HVAD at our institution, from November 2010 to March 2016. Device thrombosis (DT) was divided into suspected (SDT) and confirmed (CDT). A conservative approach using thrombolysis and heparin was used in all patients.

Results

A total of 32 HeartWare HVAD pumps were implanted. Mean age was 59 ± 10 years and the mean time on mechanical support was 19.29 months (± 14.06). Pump thrombosis occurred in 7 patients (0.14 patients/year) after a mean time of 733 (231–1,606) days after LVAD implantation. Three out of 7 cases had thrombosis recurrence (43%). Overall 19 episodes were recorded (0.38 event per patient/year). Eighteen out of 19 thrombolytic treatments were successful (94.7%). No patient required LVAD replacement or transfusion of blood products. There was no significant difference in terms of survival between patients who experienced thrombotic events and patients who did not. No major complications related to thrombolysis were recorded.

Conclusions

Systemic thrombolysis plus heparin was an excellent therapeutic option. Early intervention in clinically stable patients without signs of heart failure but with indirect signs of device thrombosis has led to better outcomes.

Monitoring hemostasis parameters in left ventricular assist device recipients - a preliminary report

Introduction

Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) therapy is associated with the improvement of long-term prognosis in patients with end-stage heart failure. For years it has been used as a bridge to transplant. However, more recently it is even being used as a destination therapy. Recently, clinicians have identified common MCS therapy-associated complications: pump thrombosis, bleeding, and hemolysis. These complications are very challenging with regard to both diagnosis and management.

Aim

To determine time-dependant changes of selected hemostasis/coagulation parameters in patients with end-stage heart failure treated with MCS and antithrombotic therapy.

Material and methods

Sixteen patients with end-stage heart failure on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) were followed for 6 weeks (six blood samples for each patient). Every week an extended hemostasis panel was assessed, including activated partial thromboplastin time, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio, von Willebrand factor (vWF) activity, factor VIII activity, fibrinogen level, D-dimer, platelet response to arachidonic acid (ASPI test) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP test), thrombin receptor activating peptide-6 (TRAP test) and collagen (COL test).

Results

The study population comprised 16 men. The median time from LVAD implantation was 120 days (100–150 days). During the study period the D-dimer and fibrinogen concentrations were elevated but remained similar throughout all six measurements. Meanwhile factor VIII and vWF activities were elevated in the first two measurements and then subsequently declined. Inhibition of platelet aggregation was greater early after LVAD implantation. During subsequent weeks the inhibition of platelet aggregation was less pronounced. No patient developed any bleeding or thrombo-embolic event during the study period.

Conclusions

Patients on MCS therapy demonstrate significant time-dependant changes in hemostasis parameters (both in the coagulation system and platelet aggregation).

Device-Related Thrombosis in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Support

Advanced heart failure therapy has been revolutionized with the advent of continuous-flow ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) which have improved both survival and quality of life. Despite this, support with CF-LVADs is frequently complicated, with 70% of recipients experiencing a major complication in the first year of durable support. The most concerning of these complications to emerge is device-related thrombosis, which is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Pathophysiology and diagnosis are multifaceted and complex, with pump-specific and patient-specific factors to be considered. Incidence estimates are evolving with increases seen in the past 2 years compared with earlier implant data. Evidence for treatment is limited to case series and reports, which are subject to significant publication bias. Finally, appropriate primary and secondary prophylaxis is imprecise with multiple antiplatelet and antithrombotic strategies described. This review seeks to summarize the current literature surrounding the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of thrombosis in CF-LVAD recipients.

Thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: pathophysiology, prevention, and pharmacologic management

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices reduce short-term mortality and improve quality of life in patients with end-stage heart failure. Unfortunately, device-related complications remain common, with many patients experiencing adverse events within the first year. New literature suggests that rates of device-related thrombosis may be increasing since 2011, which is particularly troublesome given that this pathology can result in a disabling stroke, organ damage, and death. In 2013, a group of practitioners in the field of mechanical circulatory support published a treatment algorithm based on their expert opinion. However, a comprehensive review of the pharmacotherapy of this condition is lacking. A search of the literature revealed 20 separate publications of case reports or case series describing outcomes associated with the use of drug therapy for suspected pump thrombosis. Each of these experiences was limited by small sample size, nonrandomized treatment allocation, and nonstandardized medication dosing. Data describing the outcomes of surgical versus medical management of device thrombosis are also sparse, with only three published reports identified. Based on the review of this limited literature, surgical management appears to be the preferred treatment modality, especially in those with organ hypoperfusion or hemodynamic instability. In patients ineligible for surgery, pharmacotherapy options remain limited. Use of all drug classes described in the literature for the HeartMate II device-fibrinolytics, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and direct thrombin inhibitors-was hindered by either marginal efficacy or bleeding. Based on historical experience with unfractionated heparin in patients under HeartMate II support, we recommend this agent as a possible option for those with suspected pump thrombosis in lieu of surgical device exchange. For the HeartWare HVAD, limited data suggest that direct intraventricular administration of alteplase may be an acceptable treatment alternative. Additional research is clearly needed to further delineate the role of pharmacotherapy and to identify the optimal agent for managing this potentially life-threatening condition.