Exploratory Simulation of Thrombosis in a Temporary LVAD Catheter Pump within a Virtual In-vivo Left Heart Environment

Percutaneous catheter pumps are intraventricular temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices that are positioned across the aortic valve into the left ventricle (LV) and provide continuous antegrade blood flow from the LV into the ascending aorta (AA). MCS devices are most often computationally evaluated as isolated devices subject to idealized steady-state blood flow conditions. In clinical practice, MCS devices operate connected to or within diseased pulsatile native hearts and are often complicated by hemocompatibility related adverse events such as stroke, bleeding, and thrombosis. Whereas aspects of the human circulation are increasingly being simulated via computational methods, the precise interplay of pulsatile LV hemodynamics with MCS pump hemocompatibility remains mostly unknown and not well characterized. Technologies are rapidly converging such that next-generation MCS devices will soon be evaluated in virtual physiological environments that increasingly mimic clinical settings. The purpose of this brief communication is to report results and lessons learned from an exploratory CFD simulation of hemodynamics and thrombosis for a catheter pump situated within a virtual in-vivo left heart environment.

Impella 5.5 as a bridge to heart transplantation: Waitlist outcomes in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The 2018 United Network for Organ Sharing allocation policy change has led to a significant increase in the use of mechanical circulatory support devices in patients listed for orthotopic heart transplantation. However, there has been a paucity of data regarding the newest generation Impella 5.5, which received FDA approval in 2019.

METHODS

The United Network for Organ Sharing registry was queried for all adults awaiting orthotopic heart transplantation who received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period. Waitlist, device, and early post-transplant outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 464 patients received Impella 5.5 support during their listing period with a median waitlist time of 19 days. Among them, 402 (87%) patients were ultimately transplanted, with 378 (81%) being directly bridged to transplant with the device. Waitlist death (7%) and clinical deterioration (5%) were the most common reasons for waitlist removal. Device complications and failure were uncommon (<5%). The most common post-transplant complication was acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (16%). Survival at 1-year post-transplant survival was 89.5%.

CONCLUSION

Since its approval, the Impella 5.5 has been increasingly used as a bridge to transplant. This analysis demonstrates robust waitlist and post-transplant outcomes with minimal device-related and postoperative complications.

Left ventricular assist device bridging to heart transplantation: Comparison of temporary versus durable support

BACKGROUND

Since the revision of the United States heart allocation system, increasing use of mechanical circulatory support has been observed as a means to support acutely ill patients. We sought to compare outcomes between patients bridged to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) with either temporary (t-LVAD) or durable left ventricular assist devises (d-LVAD) under the revised system.

METHODS

The United States Organ Network database was queried to identify all adult OHT recipients who were bridged to transplant with either an isolated t-LVAD or d-LVAD from 10/18/2018 to 9/30/2020. The primary outcome was 1-year post-transplant survival. Predictors of mortality were also modeled, and national trends of LVAD bridging were examined across the study period.

RESULTS

About 1,734 OHT recipients were analyzed, 1,580 (91.1%) bridged with d-LVAD and 154 (8.9%) bridged with t-LVAD. At transplant, the t-LVAD cohort had higher total bilirubin levels and greater prevalence of pre-transplant intravenous inotrope usage and mechanical ventilation. Median waitlist time was also shorter for t-LVAD. At 1 year, there was a non-significant trend of increased survival in the t-LVAD cohort (94.8% vs 90.1%; p = 0.06). After risk adjustment, d-LVAD was associated with a 4-fold hazards for 1-year mortality (hazard ratio 3.96, 95% confidence interval 1.42-11.03; p = 0.009). From 2018 to 2021, t-LVAD bridging increased, though d-LVAD remained a more common bridging strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the 2018 allocation change, there has been a steady increase in t-LVAD usage as a bridge to OHT. Overall, patients bridged with these devices appear to have least equivalent 1-year survival compared to those bridged with d-LVAD.