Choosing Between Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Biventricular Assist Devices

Multimodality Imaging in Advanced Heart Failure for Diagnosis, Management and Follow-Up: A Comprehensive Review

Advanced heart failure (AHF) presents a complex landscape with challenges spanning diagnosis, management, and patient outcomes. In response, the integration of multimodality imaging techniques has emerged as a pivotal approach. This comprehensive review delves into the profound significance of these imaging strategies within AHF scenarios. Multimodality imaging, encompassing echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), nuclear imaging and cardiac computed tomography (CCT), stands as a cornerstone in the care of patients with both short- and long-term mechanical support devices. These techniques facilitate precise device selection, placement, and vigilant monitoring, ensuring patient safety and optimal device functionality. In the context of orthotopic cardiac transplant (OTC), the role of multimodality imaging remains indispensable. Echocardiography offers invaluable insights into allograft function and potential complications. Advanced methods, like speckle tracking echocardiography (STE), empower the detection of acute cell rejection. Nuclear imaging, CMR and CCT further enhance diagnostic precision, especially concerning allograft rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy. This comprehensive imaging approach goes beyond diagnosis, shaping treatment strategies and risk assessment. By harmonizing diverse imaging modalities, clinicians gain a panoramic understanding of each patient's unique condition, facilitating well-informed decisions. The aim is to highlight the novelty and unique aspects of recently published papers in the field. Thus, this review underscores the irreplaceable role of multimodality imaging in elevating patient outcomes, refining treatment precision, and propelling advancements in the evolving landscape of advanced heart failure management.

How do mechanical circulatory support patients die? Autopsy findings for left-ventricular assist device/total artificial heart nonsurvivors

BACKGROUND

Although life saving for end-stage heart failure patients, permanent mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is often the proximate cause of death in those that do not survive to transplant. Autopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosing causes of death and a vital tool for better understanding underlying pathology of nonsurvivors. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and outcomes of autopsy investigations and compare these with premortem clinical assessment.

METHODS

The autopsy findings and medical records of all patients who underwent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or total artificial heart (TAH) insertion between June 1994 and April 2022 as a bridge to transplant, but subsequently died pre-heart transplantation were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients had a LVAD or TAH implanted during the study period. Seventy-eight patients (M=59, F=19) died prior to transplantation (age 55 [14] years, INTERMACS=2). Autopsies were conducted in 26 of 78 patients (33%). Three were limited studies. The leading contributor to cause of death was respiratory (14/26), either nosocomial infection or associated with multiorgan failure. Intracranial hemorrhage was the second most common cause of death (8/26). There was a major discrepancy rate of 17% and a minor discrepancy rate of 43%. Autopsy study added a total of 14 additional contributors of death beyond clinical assessment alone (Graphical Abstract).

CONCLUSIONS

Over an observational period of 26years, the frequency of autopsy was low. To improve LVAD/TAH patient survival to transplant, better understanding as to cause of death is required. Patients with MCS have complex physiology and are at high risk of infection and bleeding complications.

CT and chest radiography in evaluation of mechanical circulatory support devices for acute heart failure

Acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients who have had recent cardiac surgery, myocardial infarct or pulmonary hypertension. The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices before organ failure occurs can improve outcomes in these patients. Imaging plays a key role in identifying appropriate positioning of MCS devices for supporting ventricle function. These devices can be used for left ventricle, right ventricle or biventricular support. Fluoroscopy, angiography and echocardiography are used for implanting these devices. Radiographs and CT can identify both intra- and extra-cardiac complications. The cardiothoracic imager will see increasing use of these devices and familiarity with their normal appearance and complications is important. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Chest radiographs and CT are useful for assessing the position of the mechanical cardiac support device used for treatment of acute heart failure. CT can identify cardiac and extra-cardiac complications associated with these devices. KEY POINTS: IABP upper/distal marker should be 2-3 cm distal to the ostia of the left subclavian artery. Inlet of Impella CP should be 3.5 cm below the aortic valve. The Impella 5.5 does not have a pigtail portion. The inlet should be about 5 cm below the aortic annulus. Impella RP inlet port should be in the right atrium or inferior vena cava, the pigtail portion should be positioned in the main pulmonary artery. Protek Duo inflow is in the right atrium or right ventricle. The outflow is in the main pulmonary artery.

Left Ventricular Assist Device: Indication, Timing, and Management

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are indicated in inotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) patients with pure or predominant LV dysfunction. Survival benefit is less clear in ambulatory, advanced HF. Timing is crucial: early, unnecessary exposure to the risks of surgery, and device-related complications (infections, stroke, and bleeding) should be weighed against the probability of dying or developing irreversible right ventricular and/or end-organ dysfunction while deferring implant. The interplay between LVAD and heart transplantation depends largely on donor availability and allocation rules. Postoperatively, quality of life depends on patients' expectations and is influenced by complications. Patients' preferences, prognosis, and alternative options-including palliation-should be openly discussed and reviewed before and after the operation.

Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: a review of the literature

Right ventricular failure (RVF) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a major complication which may significantly impair patient outcome. The genesis of RVF is, however, multifactorial, and the mechanisms underlying such a condition have not been fully elucidated, making its prevention challenging and the course not always predictable. Although preoperative risks factors can be associated with RV impairment, the physiologic changes after the LV support, can still hamper the function of the RV. Current medical treatment options are limited and sometimes, patients with a severe post-LVAD RVF may be unresponsive to pharmacological therapy and require more aggressive treatment, such as temporary RV support. We retrieved 11 publications which we assessed and divided in groups based on the RV support [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), right ventricular assist device (RVAD), TandemHeart with ProtekDuo cannula]. The current review comprehensively summarizes the main studies of the literature with particular attention to the RV physiology and its changes after the LVAD implantation, the predictors and prognostic score as well as the different modalities of temporary mechanical cardio-circulatory support, and its effects on patient prognosis for RVF in such a setting. In addition, it provides a decision making of the pre-, intra and post-operative management in high- and moderate- risk patients.

Outcomes of Mechanical Circulatory Support for Giant Cell Myocarditis: A Systematic Review

Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32-57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58-255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS.