Results of new-generation intrapericardial continuous flow left ventricular assist devices as a bridge-to-transplant

Days Alive and Out of the Hospital After Heart Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) as an outcome measure after orthotopic heart transplantation in patients with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant compared to those patients without prior MCS.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study of adult patients who underwent cardiac transplantation between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. The primary outcome was DAOH at 365 days (DAOH365) after an orthotopic heart transplant. A Poisson regression model was fitted to detect the association between independent variables and DAOH365.

SETTING

An academic tertiary referral center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 235 heart transplant patients were included-103 MCS as a bridge to transplant patients, and 132 direct orthotopic heart transplants without prior MCS.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The median DAOH365 for the entire cohort was 348 days (IQR 335.0-354.0). There was no difference in DAOH365 between the MCS patients and patients without MCS (347.0 days [IQR 336.0-353.0] v 348.0 days [IQR 334.0-354.0], p = 0.43). Multivariate analysis identified patients who underwent a transplant after the 2018 heart transplant allocation change, pretransplant pulmonary hypertension, and increased total ischemic time as predictors of reduced DAOH365.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation, there was no significant difference in DAOH365 in patients with prior MCS as a bridge to transplant compared to those without MCS. Incorporating days alive and out of the hospital into the pre-transplant evaluation may improve understanding and conceptualization of the post-transplantation patient experience and aid in shared decision-making with clinicians.

Efficacy and Complication Profiles of Left Ventricular Assist Devices in Adult Heart Failure Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have marked a milestone in the evolution of treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure. Their popularity and use are steadily rising. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LVADs in improving the survival rate of patients with end-stage heart failure and to identify the complications or adverse events associated with LVAD use. Articles for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only studies that met the predefined PICOS eligibility criteria were analyzed. LVADs significantly improved the 6, 12, 18, and 24-month survival rates in patients with end-stage heart failure compared to no LVAD or other therapies: OR 1.87 (95%CI [1.27-2.76]), OR 2.29 (95%CI [1.61-3.26]), OR 2.07 (95%CI [0.61-6.61]), and OR 1.73 (95%CI [0.88-3.41]) for 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the LVAD group than in the non-LVAD treatments: bleeding OR 12.53 (95%CI [2.60-60.41]), infections OR 4.15 (95%CI [1.19-14.45]), stroke OR 2.58 (95%CI [1.38-4.82]), and arrhythmia OR 2.81 (95%CI [1.64-4.80]). Overall, complications were higher in the LVAD group compared to those without LVAD treatment. Hospital readmissions due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the LVAD group, OR 2.98 (95%CI [1.38-6.43]). Despite the elevated risk of adverse events associated with LVADs, these devices have demonstrated a notable enhancement in the survival outcomes for patients with end-stage heart failure.

Post-transplant survival with pre-transplant durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support in a Swiss cohort of heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, almost half of all heart transplantation candidates arrive today at their transplant operation with durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support (CF-MCS). This evolution is due to a progressive increase of waiting list time and hence an increased risk of haemodynamic worsening. Longer duration of CF-MCS is associated with a higher risk of device-related complications with potential adverse impact on post-transplant outcome as suggested by recent results from the United Network of Organ Sharing of the United States.

METHODS

A 2-centre Swiss heart transplantation programme conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients of theirs who underwent a transplant in the period 2008-2020. The primary aim was to determine whether post-transplant all-cause mortality is different between heart transplant recipients without or with pre-transplant CF-MCS. The secondary outcome was the acute cellular rejection score within the first year post-transplant.

RESULTS

The study participants had a median age of 54 years; 38/158 (24%) were females. 53/158 study participants (34%) had pre-transplant CF-MCS with a median treatment duration of 280 days. In heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS, the prevalence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy was higher (51 vs 32%; p = 0.013), the left ventricular ejection fraction was lower (20 vs 25; p = 0.047) and pulmonary vascular resistance was higher (2.3 vs 2.1 Wood Units; p = 0.047). Over the study period, the proportion of heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS and the duration of pre-transplant CF-MCS treatment increased (2008-2014 vs 2015-2020: 22% vs 45%, p = 0.009; increase of treatment days per year: 34.4 ± 11.2 days, p = 0.003; respectively). The primary and secondary outcomes were not different between heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS or direct heart transplantation (log-rank p = 0.515; 0.16 vs 0.14, respectively; p = 0.81).

CONCLUSION

This data indicates that the strategy of pre-transplant CF-MCS with subsequent orthotopic heart transplantation provides post-transplant outcomes not different to direct heart transplantation despite the fact that the duration of pre-transplant assist device treatment has progressively increased.

A Device Strategy-Matched Comparison Analysis among Different Intermacs Profiles: A Single Center Experience

Background: The present study evaluates outcomes of LVAD patients, taking into account the device strategy and the INTERMACS profile. Methods: We included 192 LVAD-patients implanted between January 2012 and May 2021. The primary and secondary end-points were survival and major adverse events between Profiles 1–3 vs. Profile 4, depending on implantation strategies (Bridge-to-transplant-BTT; Bridge-to-candidacy-BTC; Destination-Therapy-DT). Results: The overall survival was 67% (61–75) at 12 months and 61% (54–70) at 24 months. Profile 4 patients showed significantly higher survival (p = 0.018). Incidences of acute right-ventricular-failure (RVF) (p = 0.046), right-ventricular-assist-device (RVAD) implantation (p = 0.015), and continuous-venovenous-hemofiltration (CVVH) (p = 0.006) were higher in Profile 1–3 patients, as well as a longer intensive care unit stays (p = 0.050) and in-hospital-mortality (p = 0.012). Twelve-month and 24-month survival rates were higher in the BTT rather than in BTC (log-rank = 0.410; log-rank = 0.120) and in DT groups (log-rank = 0.046). In the BTT group, Profile 1–3 patients had a higher need for RVAD support (p = 0.042). Conclusions: LVAD implantation in elective patients was associated with better survival and lower complications incidence. LVAD implantation in BTC patients has to be considered before their conditions deteriorate. DT should be addressed to elective patients in order to guarantee acceptable results.

Contemporary outcomes of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices-a systematic review

Background

End stage heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and its prevalence is expected to rise with the ageing population. For suitable patients, orthotopic heart transplantation remains the gold standard therapy, however, a paucity of donor organs has led to the development of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). These devices can be utilized as either a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) or as an alternative to heart transplantation. While these devices can prolong life and improve quality of life, they are associated with a significant number of adverse events. We aim to systematically review the literature to quantify survival and the incidence of adverse events following implantation of continuous-flow LVADs (cf-LVAD).

Methods

A systematic review was performed to determine outcomes following implantation of a cf-LVAD. Primary outcomes were survival and frequency of adverse events (such as bleeding, infection, thrombosis, stroke and right ventricular failure). Secondary outcomes included quality of life and assessment of functional status.

Results

Sixty-three studies reported clinical outcomes of 9,280 patients. Survival after cf-LVAD varied between studies. Industry-funded trials generally reported better overall survival than the single- and multi-center case series, which showed significant variation. The largest registry report documented twelve, twenty-four and forty-eight-month survival rates of 82%, 72% and 57% respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), device-related infection, neurological events and right heart failure (RHF). Bleeding, RHF and infection were the most frequent complications experienced by those supported with cf-LVAD, occurring in up to 35%, 40% and 55% of patients, respectively. Quality of life as measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and functional status as measured with the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) improved after cf-LVAD implantation with no decline evident two years after implantation.

Conclusions

The paucity of donor hearts has led to the development of left-ventricular assist devices as a BTT or as a destination therapy (DT). Outcomes after cf-LVAD implantation are excellent, with short-term survival comparable to heart transplantation, but long-term survival remains limited due to the incidence of post-implantation adverse events. Despite these complications, quality of life and functional status improve significantly post-implantation and remain improved over the long-term. This study demonstrates the potential benefits of cf-LVAD therapy whilst also identifying adverse events as an area of increased morbidity and mortality.

Biventricular assistance with 2 hm3 in a small chest patient: extra-pericardial implant

We describe the clinical course and treatment of a 53-year-old female, with small chest dimensions, referred to our institution for a primary cardiogenic shock. The patient underwent an on-pump left ventricular assist-device (VAD) implantation with the aid of immediate post-operative paracorporeal right-VAD assistance for an acute right ventricular failure. After two unsuccessful weaning attempts, she underwent extrapericardial HM 3 RVAD implantation.

Heart Transplantation After Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: Benefits, Risks, and Outcomes

Heart transplantation is an established treatment for end-stage heart failure. Due to the increase in demand and persistent scarcity of organ, mechanical circulatory devices have played a major role in therapy for advanced heart failure. Usage of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has gone up from 6% in 2006 to 43% in 2013 as per the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Majority of patients presenting for a heart transplantation are often bridged with an assist device prior for management of heart failure while on wait-list. On one hand, it is well established that LVADs improve survival on wait-list; on the other hand, the effect of LVAD on morbidity and survival after a heart transplantation is still unclear. In this article, we review the available literature and attempt to infer the outcomes given the risks and benefits of heart transplantation with prior LVAD patients.

Outcomes of patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device undergoing emergency endovascular treatment for atraumatic bleeding

Introduction

Severe spontaneous bleeding is a significant complication in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices; there is little evidence on endovascular treatment to support its use.

Materials and methods

We observed seven patients (five men, two women, age 43–67 years) with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices on antiaggregant/coagulant therapy, admitted to our hospital for uncorrectable symptomatic anemia; CT-angiography and diagnostic angiography confirmed the presence of atraumatic arterious bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract (six patients), from the intercostal artery and from the bronchial tree (one patient).

Results

All patients where successfully treated via an endovascular approach with superselective embolization of the involved arterial branches with coils and particles.

Conclusion

Spontaneous atraumatic bleeding is a frequent complication in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices; endovascular treatment represents a promising alternative to the surgical approach as it is less invasive, easily repeatable and associated to a reduced procedural risk.