Survival after left ventricular assist device with and without temporary right ventricular support.

Right ventricular (RV) failure after the insertion of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) historically results in poor outcomes. Patients requiring temporary RV support after LVAD insertion are a heterogeneous group of patients consisting of those in cardiogenic shock after myocardial infarction, to those with chronic decompensated heart failure. For patients requiring biventricular support, we have used a hybrid system consisting of a HeartMate II LVAD and CentriMag right ventricular assist device (RVAD). The purpose of this study was to determine the 1-year survival in patients requiring isolated LVAD and patients requiring biventricular support. All patients who underwent HeartMate II LVAD alone or in conjunction with a temporary CentriMag RVAD were examined from 2006 to 2011. Preoperative demographics, operative outcomes, and survival were analyzed. A total of 139 patients required HeartMate II insertion; 34 (24%) required biventricular support at the time of HeartMate II implantation. The mean duration of biventricular support was 17 ± 11.9 days (range, 6 to 56 days) with 91.8% (n = 31) of RVADs successfully explanted. Survival to hospital discharge was not different between groups (95.2 versus 88.2%; p = 0.2). However, 1-year survival was significantly greater in patients who required isolated HeartMate II LVAD (87% versus 77%; p = 0.03). Biventricular support using a HeartMate II LVAD and CentriMag RVAD resulted in limited mortality at hospital discharge. However biventricular dysfunction does not have a favorable outcome at 1 year when compared with patients requiring isolated HeartMate II.

Lazar JF ，Swartz MF ，Schiralli MP ，Schneider M ，Pisula B ，Hallinan W ，Hicks GL Jr ，Massey HT ... -  《-》

Outcome of unplanned right ventricular assist device support for severe right heart failure after implantable left ventricular assist device insertion.

The use of a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) becomes necessary for severe right ventricular (RV) failure after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion. Although temporary support could lead to successful RVAD weaning in certain patients, the data remain scarce. We retrospectively reviewed 398 patients who underwent implantable LVAD insertion between January 2000 and December 2012. Of these patients, 44 (11%) required unplanned RVAD support due to severe RV failure after LVAD insertion. For comparison, 37 patients who underwent planned biventricular assist device (BiVAD) insertion were identified during the same study period. We analyzed the early and late outcomes in these patients. The mean duration of RVAD support was 21 ± 23 days. Of the 44 patients, 21 (49%) were weaned from the RVAD (weaning group), whereas 23 (51%) required continued biventricular support (failure group). The failure group had ongoing end-organ dysfunction after RVAD insertion. Hospital mortality was significantly lower in the weaning group (24%) and in the planned BiVAD group (30%) as compared to the failure group (74%, p = 0.0009). The 6-month actuarial survival rate was 75% in the weaning group, 62% in the planned BiVAD group and 13% in the failure group (p < 0.0001). Successful bridge to transplant was achieved in 14 patients (67%) in the weaning group as compared with 8 patients (35%) in the failure group (p = 0.03). On multivariate logistic regression analyses, pre-operative white blood cell (odds ratio [OR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04 to 1.50, p = 0.016) and creatinine (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.079 to 0.88, p = 0.03) levels were significant predictors for RVAD removal. Among patients who developed acute RV failure after LVAD insertion, only half could be weaned from the temporary RVAD support. An alternative strategy is necessary in patients who require continuous RVAD support.

Takeda K ，Naka Y ，Yang JA ，Uriel N ，Colombo PC ，Jorde UP ，Takayama H ... -  《-》

[Left ventricular assist device recipients at risk of right ventricular failure: the role of a planned temporary biventricular support].

Loforte A ，Lilla Della Monica P ，Montalto A ，Musumeci F ... -  《-》

Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: a comparison of two techniques.

Right ventricular failure (RVF) after implantation of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a dramatic complication. We compared retrospectively two techniques of temporary right ventricular support after LVAD (HeartMate II, Thoratec Corp, Pleasonton, CA, USA) implantation. From 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2012, 78 patients [mean age 52 ± 1.34 years; 15 women (19%)] received a HeartMate II at our institution. Among these, 18 patients (23%) suffered postimplant RVF treated by peripheral temporary right ventricular support. Aetiology of heart failure was ischaemic in 12 (67%) and dilated cardiomyopathy in 6 (33%) patients. The preimplant RV risk score averaged 5.1 ± 0.59. Ten patients were treated using a femorofemoral venoarterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and 8 patients were treated using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) established between a femoral vein and the pulmonary artery via a Dacron prosthesis (RVAD). Duration of RV support was 7.12 ± 5.4 days and 9.57 ± 3.5 days in venoarterial ECLS and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD groups, respectively (P = 0.32). Three patients (17%) died while under RV support (venoarterial ECLS, n = 2; and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD, n = 1, P = 0.58). In the venoarterial ECLS group, 6 (60%) patients suffered major thromboembolic complications including thrombosis of the ECLS arterial line (n = 2), ischaemic stroke (n = 2) and thrombosis of the ascending aorta (n = 2). No major complication was observed in the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.01). RV support was successfully weaned in 8 (80%) patients of the venoarterial ECLS group and in 7 (87.5%) of the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.58). The duration of postimplant intensive care unit stay was not different (respectively, 27.5 ± 18.7 days and 20.0 ± 12.0 days; P = 0.38) between both groups. Temporary support of the failing RV after LVAD implantation using temporary vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD is a promising therapeutic option. This approach provides adequate LVAD pre- and afterload and is associated with significantly less thromboembolic complications.

Noly PE ，Kirsch M ，Quessard A ，Leger P ，Pavie A ，Amour J ，Leprince P ... -  《-》

Post-heart transplantation outcome of HeartMate II-bridged recipients requiring unplanned concomitant temporary right ventricular mechanical support.

Second-generation axial-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become an established therapy in bridging end-stage heart failure patients to cardiac transplantation. Despite the proven clinical success of these devices, some patients develop right ventricular (RV) failure after LVAD implantation. We sought to determine post-heart transplantation outcomes of HeartMate II (HMII)-bridged patients who developed postimplantation right ventricular failure and received Levitronix CentriMag for RV support in addition to LVAD. This was a single-centre institutional report of 64 patients transplanted during 2007-2013 from a HeartMate II device. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received an isolated LVAD (n = 56) or required additional RV mechanical support (n = 8). These two groups were compared for early graft loss (death before discharge or retransplantation), major early post-transplant complications and 3-year graft survival. Early graft loss was 10.7% in isolated HMII and 25% in HMII + RVAD patients (P = 0.26). There were no observed differences in the rates of primary graft dysfunction (7.3 vs 0%, P = NS), renal failure (16.7 vs 12.5%, P = NS) and stroke (11.1 vs 25%, P = 0.273) between the two groups. Pulmonary artery resistance (odds ratio: 3.286, 95% confidence interval: 1.063-10.157, P = 0.039) was identified as a significant predictor for adverse outcome of mechanically-bridged heart transplant recipients. The 3-year graft survival rate was 86 ± 5% in isolated HMII and 75 ± 15% in HMII + RVAD patients, P = 0.326. Our data demonstrate that heart transplant recipients who required unplanned RV mechanical support after LVAD implantation achieved comparable rates of early graft loss, post-transplant renal failure and stroke rate in comparison with patients bridged with an isolated HeartMate II assist device. Three-year graft survival was equivalent between those two groups. Given the small sample size, further studies involving more patients are needed to support or challenge our conclusions.

Urban M ，Pirk J ，Szarszoi O ，Besik J ，Netuka I ... -  《-》