No abstract

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 multicenter case series, which showed significant variation. The largest registry report documented twelve, twentyfour 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.

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.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used in cardiogenic shock refractory to inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) support. Peripheral ECMO can lead to ventricular distention, and IABP can be used to mitigate these effects. The aim of this study was to quantify the effects of IABP concomitant with ECMO, under different simulated hemodynamic conditions in a mock circulatory loop. Different simulated states of isolated left ventricular (LV) failure and biventricular failure with graded LV failure severities were supported with ECMO and ECMO with IABP. The impact on left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), volume (LVEDV), coronary flow rate, and cerebral flow rate were evaluated. Left ventricular volumes and pressures increased from the heart failure states with the addition of ECMO. The IABP provided between 3% and 7% reductions in LVEDP and between 1% and 10% reductions in LVEDV. The addition of IABP had minimal effect on cerebral blood flow (0% to 7%), but the variable impact on coronary blood flow with increased diastolic coronary flow of 23% to 50%, but the reduction in mean coronary flow by up to 30%. The efficacy of the IABP was strongly related to ventricular contractility. This study demonstrates the need for careful IABP selection concomitant with ECMO.