Biventricular mechanical support devices--clinical perspectives

Test Bench for Right Ventricular Failure Reversibility: The Hybrid BiVAD Concept

BACKGROUND

When heart transplantation and myocardial recovery are unlikely, patients presenting with biventricular cardiogenic shock initially treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may benefit from a mechanical support upgrade. In this scenario, a micro-invasive approach is proposed: the combination of the double-lumen ProtekDuo cannula (Livanova, London, UK) and the Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) trans-aortic pump that translates into a hybrid BiVAD.

METHODS

All consecutive ECMO patients presenting with biventricular cardiogenic shock and ineligibility to heart transplantation from August 2022 were prospectively enrolled. The clinical course, procedural details, and in-hospital events were collected via electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of three patients, who were temporarily not eligible for heart transplantation or durable LVAD due to severe acute pneumonia and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction, were implanted with a hybrid BiVAD. This strategy provided high-flow biventricular support while pulmonary function ameliorated. Moreover, by differentially sustaining the systemic and pulmonary circulation, it allowed for a more adequate reassessment of RV function. All the patients were considered eligible for isolated durable LVAD and underwent less invasive LVAD implantation paired with a planned postoperative RVAD. In all cases, RV function gradually recovered and the RVAD was successfully removed.

CONCLUSIONS

The Hybrid BiVAD represents an up-to-date micro-invasive mechanical treatment of acute biventricular failure beyond ECMO. Its rationale relies on more physiological circulation across the lungs, the complete biventricular unloading, and the possibility of including an oxygenator in the circuit. Finally, the independent and differential control of pulmonary and systemic flows allows for more accurate RV function evaluation for isolated durable LVAD eligibility reassessment.

How to Select Patients for Left Ventricular Assist Devices? A Guide for Clinical Practice

In recent years, a significant improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has occurred, and the continuous-flow devices currently used can last more than 10 years in a patient. Current studies report that the 5-year survival rate after LVAD implantation approaches that after a heart transplant. However, the outcome is influenced by the correct selection of the patients, as well as the choice of the optimal time for implantation. This review summarizes the indications, the red flags for prompt initiation of LVAD evaluation, and the principles for appropriate patient screening.

Contemporary outcomes of continuous-flow biventricular assist devices

Background

Significant right ventricular failure (RVF) complicating left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement has been reported at 10-30%. Although primarily indicated for left ventricular failure, ventricular assist devices (VADs) have become utilized in a biventricular setup to combat right ventricular failure (RVF) following LVAD implantation. With the advent of continuous-flow LVADs (CF-LVADs) superseding their pulsatile predecessors, the shift towards CF-biventricular assist devices (CF-BiVADs) come with the prospect of improved outcomes over previous pulsatile BiVADs. We aim to review the literature and determine the outcomes of CF-BiVAD recipients.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to determine the outcomes of CF-BiVADs. Pre-operative demographics and device configuration data was collected. Primary outcomes evaluated were short-term survival, long-term survival, duration of support, and survival to transplant. Secondary outcomes evaluated included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (ICU-LOS and HLOS, respectively), pump thrombosis, pump exchange. Median and interquartile range was reported where appropriate. A major limitation was the likely overlap of cohorts across publications, which may have contributed to some selection bias.

Results

Of 1,282 screened, 12 publications were evaluated. Sample size ranged from 4 to 93 CF-BiVAD recipients, and follow-up ranged from 6 to 24 months. Mean age ranged from 34 to 52 years old. Forty-five percent of CF-BiVADs had right atrial (RA-) inflow cannulation, with the remaining being right ventricular (RV). Thirty-day survival was a median of 90% (IQR 82-97.8%) and 12-month survival was a median of 58.5% (IQR 47.5-62%). Where reported, rate of pump thrombosis (predominantly the right VAD) was a median of 31% (IQR 14-36%), although pump exchange was only 9% (IQR 1.5-12.5%).

Conclusions

RVF post-LVAD implantation is a high morbidity and mortality complication. There is no on-label continuous-flow RVAD currently available. Thus, the modifications of LVADs for right ventricular support to combat pump thrombosis has resulted in various techniques. BiVAD recipients are predominantly transplant candidates, and complications of pump thrombosis and driveline infection whilst on wait-list are of great consequence. This study demonstrates the need for an on-label CF-BiVAD.

Choosing Between Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Biventricular Assist Devices

Right ventricular failure following left ventricular assist devices implantation is a serious complication associated with high mortality. In patients with or at high risk of developing right ventricular failure, biventricular support is recommended. Because univentricular support is associated with high survival rates, biventricular support is often undertaken as a last resort. With the advent of newer right ventricular and biventricular systems under design and testing, better differentiation is required to ensure optimal patients care. Clear guidelines on patient selection, time of intervention and device selection are required to improve patient outcomes.