Predictors and impact of right heart failure severity following left ventricular assist device implantation

Right ventricular dysfunction in left ventricular assist device candidates: is it time to change our prospective?

The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has significantly increased in the last years, trying to offer a therapeutic alternative to heart transplantation, in light also to the significant heart donor shortage compared to the growing advanced heart failure population. Despite technological improvements in the devices, LVAD-related mortality is still fairly high, with right heart failure being one of the predominant predictors. Therefore, many efforts have been made toward a thorough right ventricular (RV) evaluation prior to LVAD implant, considering clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic, and invasive hemodynamic parameters. However, there is high heterogeneity regarding both which predictor is the strongest as well as the relative cut-off values, and a consensus has not been reached yet, increasing the risk of facing patients in which the distinction between good or poor RV function cannot be surely reached. In parallel, due to technological development and availability of mechanical circulatory support of the RV, LVADs are being considered even in patients with suboptimal RV function. The aim of our review is to analyze the current evidence regarding the role of RV function prior to LVAD and its evaluation, pointing out the extreme variability in parameters that are currently assessed and future prospective regarding new diagnostic tools. Finally, we attempt to gather the available information on the therapeutic strategies to use in the peri-operative phase, in order to reduce the incidence of RV failure, especially in patients in which the preoperative evaluation highlighted some conflicting results with regard to ventricular function.

Concomitant tricuspid valve repair in left ventricular assist device implantation may increase the risk for temporary right ventricular support but does not impact overall outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Tricuspid valve repair in left ventricular assist device implantation continues to pose a challenge and may impact the occurrence of early and late right heart failure. We investigated the effects of concomitant tricuspid repair on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective, multicentre study enrolled adult patients who received continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices between 2005 and 2017 and compared those who received concomitant tricuspid valve repair to those who did not. Primary outcomes were early right heart failure necessitating temporary ventricular assist devices and right heart failure-related rehospitalizations requiring inotropic or diuretic treatment.

RESULTS

Out of 526 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation, 110 (21%) received a concomitant tricuspid valve repair. Those patients were sicker, and most had moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation. A significantly higher incidence of temporary right ventricular assist devices was observed in the group with concomitant tricupid valve repair (18% vs. 11%, P = 0.049), with a significantly elevated risk for temporary right heart assist device (sHR 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.72; P = 0.037). After adjusting for confounders, no significant differences were found in the incidence of and risk for most clinical outcomes, including right heart failure-related rehospitalizations (P = 0.891) and death (P = 0.563).

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant tricuspid valve repair, when deemed necessary in left ventricular assist device implantation, may increase the risk of early right heart failure requiring a temporary right ventricular assist device but does not impact the incidence or risk of death or rehospitalizations due to late right heart failure.

Hemodynamic reserve predicts early right heart failure after LVAD implantation

BACKGROUND

Early right heart failure (RHF) remains a major source of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, yet efforts to predict early RHF have proven only modestly successful. Pharmacologic unloading of the left ventricle may be a risk stratification approach allowing for assessment of right ventricular and hemodynamic reserve.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients who had undergone continuous-flow LVAD implantation from October 2011 to April 2020. Only those who underwent vasodilator testing with nitroprusside during their preimplant right heart catheterization were included (n = 70). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of early RHF as defined by Mechanical Circulatory Support-Academic Research Consortium.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients experienced post-LVAD early RHF (39%). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar between patients with and without RHF. Patients without RHF, however, achieved higher peak stroke volume index (SVI) (30.1 ± 8.8 vs 21.7 ± 7.4 mL/m2; p < 0.001; AUC: 0.78; optimal cut-point: 22.1 mL/m2) during nitroprusside administration. Multivariable analysis revealed that peak SVI was significantly associated with early RHF, demonstrating a 16% increase in risk of early RHF per 1 ml/m2 decrease in SVI. A follow up cohort of 10 consecutive patients from July 2020 to October 2021 resulted in all patients being categorized appropriately in regards to early RHF versus no RHF according to peak SVI.

CONCLUSION

Peak SVI with nitroprusside administration was independently associated with post-LVAD early RHF while resting hemodynamics were not. Vasodilator testing may prove to be a strong risk stratification tool when assessing LVAD candidacy though additional prospective validation is needed.

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.

Intensive Care Management of the Cardiogenic Shock Patient

Optimal management of patients with cardiogenic shock requires a detailed and systematic assessment of all organ systems, balancing the risks and benefits of any investigation and intervention, while avoiding the complications of critical illness. Overall prognosis depends upon a number of factors, including that of the underlying cardiac disease and its potential reversibility, the severity of shock, the involvement of other organ systems, the age of the patient and comorbidities. As with all intensive care patients, the mainstay of management is supportive, up to and including implementation and management of a number of devices, including acute mechanical circulatory support. The assessment and management of these most critically ill patients therefore demands in-depth knowledge and skill relating to cardiac intensive care, extending well beyond standard intensive care or cardiology practice.

Impact of Right Heart Failure on Clinical Outcome of Left Ventricular Assist Devices (LVAD) Implantation: Single Center Experience

The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and significance of right heart failure (RHF) in the early and late phase of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with the identification of predictive factors for the development of RHF. This was a prospective observational analytical cohort study. The study included 92 patients who underwent LVAD implantation and for whom all necessary clinical data from the follow-up period were available, as well as unambiguous conclusions by the heart team regarding pathologies, adverse events, and complications. Of the total number of patients, 43.5% died. The median overall survival of patients after LVAD implantation was 22 months. In the entire study population, survival rates were 88.04% at one month, 80.43% at six months, 70.65% at one year, and 61.96% at two years. Preoperative RHF was present in 24 patients, 12 of whom died and 12 survived LVAD implantation. Only two survivors developed early RHF (ERHF) and two late RHF (LRHF). The most significant predictors of ERHF development are brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), pre-surgery RHF, FAC < 20%, prior renal insufficiency, and total duration of ICU stay (HR: 1.002, 0.901, 0.858, 23.554, and 1.005, respectively). RHF following LVAD implantation is an unwanted complication with a negative impact on treatment outcome. The increased risk of fatal outcome in patients with ERHF and LRHF after LVAD implantation results in a need to identify patients at risk of RHF, in order to administer the available preventive and therapeutic methods.

Heart, kidney and left ventricular assist device: a complex trio

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome affecting the whole body, kidneys included. The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a valid option for patients with very severe HF. Focusing on renal function, LVAD implantation could theoretically reverse the detrimental effects of HF syndrome on kidneys. However, implanting an LVAD is a high-risk surgical procedure, and LVAD patients have higher risk of bleeding, device thrombosis, strokes, renal impairment, multi-organ failure and infections. Furthermore, an LVAD has its own particular effects on the renal system.

METHODS

In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the complex interaction between LVAD and the kidneys from the pathophysiological and clinical perspectives. An analysis of the different effects of pulsatile-flow and continuous-flow LVAD is provided.

RESULTS

Despite their limitations, creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formulas help to stratify patients by their post-LVAD placement prognosis. Poor basal renal function, the onset of acute kidney injury or the need for renal replacement therapy after LVAD implantation negatively influences a patient's prognosis. LVAD can also prompt an improvement in renal function, however, with some counterintuitive effects on a patient's prognosis.

CONCLUSION

It is still hard to say whether different trends in eGFR depend on different renal conditions before LVAD placement, on a patient's better overall status or on a particular patient management strategy before and/or after the device's implantation. Steps should be taken to solve this question because finding the best candidates for LVAD implantation is of paramount importance to ensure the best outcomes.

Incidence and impact of acute kidney injury on patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices: a Meta-analysis

Background: We aimed to evaluate the acute kidney injury (AKI) incidence and its associated risk of mortality in patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD).Methods: A systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases was conducted through January 2020 to identify studies that provided data on the AKI incidence and AKI-associated mortality risk in adult patients with implantable LVADs. Pooled effect estimates were examined using random-effects, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian-Laird.Results: Fifty-six cohort studies with 63,663 LVAD patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of reported AKI was 24.9% (95%CI: 20.1%-30.4%) but rose to 36.9% (95%CI: 31.1%-43.1%) when applying the standard definition of AKI per RIFLE, AKIN, and KDIGO criteria. The pooled incidence of severe AKI requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) was 12.6% (95%CI: 10.5%-15.0%). AKI incidence did not differ significantly between types of LVAD (p = .35) or indication for LVAD use (p = .62). While meta-regression analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between study year and overall AKI incidence (p = .55), the study year was negatively correlated with the incidence of severe AKI requiring RRT (slope = -0.068, p < .001). The pooled odds ratios (ORs) of mortality at 30 days and one year in AKI patients were 3.66 (95% CI, 2.00-6.70) and 2.22 (95% CI, 1.62-3.04), respectively. The pooled ORs of mortality at 30 days and one year in severe AKI patients requiring RRT were 7.52 (95% CI, 4.58-12.33) and 5.41 (95% CI, 3.63-8.06), respectively.Conclusion: We found that more than one-third of LVAD patients develop AKI based on standard definitions, and 13% develop severe AKI requiring RRT. There has been a potential improvement in the incidence of severe AKI requiring RRT for LVAD patients. AKI in LVAD patients was associated with increased 30-day and 1 year mortality.

Minimally invasive surgery for left ventricular assist device implantation is safe and associated with a decreased risk of right ventricular failure

Background

Right ventricular failure (RVF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The objective of this study was to determine pre- and postoperative risk factors associated with the occurrence of RVF after LVAD implantation.

Methods

This retrospective study included 68 patients who received LVADs between 2010 and 2018 either for bridge to transplant (40 patients, 58.8%) or bridge to destination therapy (28 patients, 41.2%). RVF after LVAD implantation was defined according to the INTERMACS classification. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of RVF. The secondary endpoints were hospital mortality and morbidity and long-term survival.

Results

The majority of patients (61.8%) had an INTERMACS profile 1 (36.8%) or 2 (25.0%). The LVAD was implanted either by sternotomy (37 patients, 54.4%) or thoracotomy (31 patients, 45.6%). RVF after LVAD implantation was observed in 32 patients (47.1%). In univariate analysis, an elevated serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT) (P=0.028) and a high preoperative vasoactive inotropic score (VIS) (P=0.028) were significantly associated with an increased risk of RVF, whereas the implantation of LVAD through a thoracotomy approach was associated with a significant reduction in this risk (P=0.006). The multivariate analysis demonstrated that only the thoracotomy approach was significantly associated with decreased risk of RVF (odds ratio =0.33, 95% confidence interval: 0.17–0.96; P=0.042). Hospital mortality was 53.1% and 5.6% in the RVF and control groups, respectively (P<0.0001). The incidence of stroke and postoperative acute renal failure were significantly increased in the RVF group compared with the control group. The survival after LVAD implantation was 33.5%±9.0% and 85.4%±6.0% at 1 year in the RVF and control groups, respectively (P<0.0001).

Conclusions

LVAD implantation by thoracotomy significantly reduced the risk of postoperative RVF. This surgical approach should, therefore, be favored.