Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Renal Ramifications.

Abstract

HomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 12, No. 3Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Renal Ramifications Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBLeft Ventricular Assist Devices and Renal Ramifications Ajith Nair, MD and Harveen Lamba, MD, MSc Ajith NairAjith Nair *Correspondence to: Ajith Nair, MD, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3755-4985 , Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, , Houston, , TX, Search for more papers by this author and Harveen LambaHarveen Lamba , Division of Cardiothoracic Transplantation and Circulatory Support, Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, , Houston, , TX, Search for more papers by this author Originally published3 Feb 2023https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.028450Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023;12:e028450This article is a commentary on the followingLong‐Term Changes in Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Longitudinal Joint Model AnalysisOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: February 3, 2023: Ahead of Print Left ventricular assist devices are well‐established therapy for end‐stage heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation carries a Class I recommendation for patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who are inotropic dependent or require temporary mechanical support. There is a Class IIa recommendation for those patients with persistent New York Heart Association Class IV symptoms despite optimal guideline‐directed medical therapy.1Contemporary LVADs include the continuous flow axial (CF‐axial) pump, centrifugal flow hybrid levitation (CF‐hybrid) pump, and the centrifugal full‐magnetic levitation (CF‐maglev) pump. Currently, the CF‐maglev pump is the only US Food and Drug Administration–approved LVAD implanted in the United States. In the MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial, the overall 5‐year survival rate for CF‐maglev LVAD versus the CF‐axial LVAD was 58.4% and 43.7%, respectively. Among patients with LVADs as destination therapy or not receiving heart transplants, the 5‐year survival in the CF‐maglev LVAD versus the CF‐axial LVAD was 51.5% and 36.0%, respectively. Renal dysfunction, defined by an increase in creatinine of 2 mg/dL or greater or the requirement for sustained hemodialysis for 90 days, occurred in 15% of CF‐maglev patients.2 Among 14 226 LVADs implanted between 2016 and 2020, early (≤90 days postimplant) and late (≥90 days postimplant) renal dysfunction occurred in 9.1% and 4.9% of patients, respectively.3Preimplant renal dysfunction predicts higher mortality after LVAD implantation,4 and end‐stage renal disease is a contraindication to LVAD.5 In a study of Medicare beneficiaries with end‐stage renal disease, 51.6% of patients who underwent LVAD therapy died during the index hospitalization, and the survival rate was <20% at roughly 2 years.6 Another study of Medicare beneficiaries demonstrated a 1‐year mortality of 61.5% among patients with end‐stage renal disease.7 Renal replacement therapy after LVAD therapy also carries a significant mortality risk with a 1‐month survival of 74.7% and a 1‐year survival of 45.3% in a single‐center study. Pre‐existing renal disease, specifically proteinuria and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <45 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and a mean right atrial pressure to pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio ≥0.54 were predictors of renal replacement therapy after LVAD placement.8 In another study, patients with a combination of preoperative proteinuria (urine protein to creatinine ratio ≥0.55 mg/mg) and low GFR (<40 mL/min per 1.73 m2) had a 63.6% risk of renal replacement therapy after LVAD placement.9Renal dysfunction is common in patients with advanced heart failure. In a systematic review, the 1‐year mortality was 38% in patients with heart failure with any renal impairment and 51% among those with the moderate–severe disease.10 The cardiorenal syndrome describes the bidirectional, maladaptive interaction between the heart and kidneys. The cardiorenal syndrome pathophysiology is complex, and increased venous pressures, reduced renal perfusion, right ventricular dysfunction, and neurohormonal adaptations are thought to be the underlying mechanisms for renal dysfunction.11 While left ventricular unloading with LVADs improves cardiac output, reduces venous pressure, and potentially improves right ventricular function, renal trajectories can vary postimplantation.In this issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA), Roehm and colleagues evaluated the change in eGFR in LVAD recipients over 2 years.12 This single‐center study conducted at Tufts University included patients receiving LVADs from January 2010 to December 2017. Patients on hemodialysis or those who received prior LVADs were excluded. Estimated renal function was measured using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration 2009 creatinine equation. Baseline eGFR was defined as the median of all eGFR values obtained 30 days before LVAD implantation, and patients were stratified into 3 groups: baseline eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, 30 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The primary outcome was a change in eGFR over time, and secondary outcomes included a 30% change in eGFR from baseline, all‐cause death, and heart transplantation during the 2‐year follow‐up period. A joint model was constructed to examine changes in eGFR over time while accounting for informative censoring related to the competing risks of death and heart transplantation.A total of 288 patients received durable LVADs during the study period. The LVADs implanted during this period included the CF‐axial LVAD and the CF‐hybrid LVAD; 59% were implanted as a bridge to transplant. The majority (92%) had eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, with a median baseline eGFR of 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Patients were predominantly male (79%) and White (81%), 39% had ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 42% had diabetes. A higher percentage of patients with lower eGFR had ischemic cardiomyopathy and diabetes.Within each eGFR group, most patients had either an improvement or stable renal function, with only 6% (16 patients) experiencing a 30% or greater decrease in eGFR. Thirty patients (10.4%) required renal replacement therapy postoperatively, of whom 17 (56.7%) had died by 6 months. One‐year survival was 83% among those with baseline eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m2, 73% among those with baseline eGFR 30 to 59 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and 67% among those with baseline eGFR <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (P=0.13). In the joint model analysis adjusted for age, sex, and baseline eGFR, men did not have an increase in eGFR and experienced a decline of 5 to 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2 over the first year, followed by stable function over the subsequent year. Conversely, women had an increase in eGFR of ~5 mL/min per 1.72 m2 in the first year, followed by a return to baseline values.The authors should be commended for their work, which complements other studies assessing renal outcomes after LVAD implantation. The primary finding was that most patients have stable renal function within the first 2 years of LVAD therapy, even after considering competing risks. While renal dysfunction may be a relative contraindication to LVAD support, the study's findings suggest that renal dysfunction, even advanced, may not necessarily be an absolute contraindication to LVAD support. Furthermore, the differences between men and women may shed light on sex‐based differences in LVAD support. The study did not demonstrate a significant difference between eGFR and mortality, although there were only 22 patients (8%) with eGFR <30 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and the survival was 67% among this cohort.The primary limitations of this study include that it is a single center with a more homogeneous population than is represented in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). In addition, the LVADs in this cohort are not currently implanted. However, both short‐ and long‐term data from the MOMENTUM 3 trial did not suggest significant differences in renal function between the axial versus centrifugal flow pump. The authors used a sophisticated statistical joint model to address the changes to GFR over time and to account for those patients who could not contribute GFR data because of death or heart transplantation before the end time of the study. It is informative that differences in GFR patterns over time were noted between men and women. Yet the authors included factors selected a priori into their model, which limits the findings to the variables selected. The differences between men and women may be because of distinct differences between their sexes that were not explored in this study. For instance, men in this cohort were statistically more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy, while women were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Interestingly, the GFR patterns, when compared between the 2 cardiomyopathies, paralleled those of their respective associated sexes. This leaves open the question of other notable differences that may be contributing to differences in eGFR patterns between men and women. As the authors conclude, larger studies are indeed needed to address this important question.The present study is unique in that it accounts for the competing risks of death and heart transplantation when describing changes in GFR over time, a limitation that may bias results. The findings of this study mirror what other investigators have demonstrated. In a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 400 patients that included axial and centrifugal flow LVADs, renal function initially improved in all chronic kidney disease groups and then regressed to baseline levels. Patients with an early improvement in renal function were younger and more likely in shock, and these patients had improved survival rates over a 2‐year follow‐up.13 Likewise, in a study of 59 patients supported with LVADs over 3 years, the hepatic function remained in the normal range for the duration while renal function transiently improved and then returned to baseline. Older age, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and late right ventricular failure were risk factors for progressive renal failure.14Utilizing INTERMACS data that included pulsatile pumps and continuous pumps, Brisco and colleagues reported an early improvement in renal function followed by a decline in renal function over the subsequent year. Of note, poor survival was associated with both marked improvement and worsening in eGFR.15 The former finding may result from significant inflammatory insult and progressive sarcopenia postimplantation. The impact of muscle wasting is an essential factor mediating renal function assessment. Serum creatinine, used to measure renal function, may be reduced by muscle wasting, which is common in end‐stage heart failure. Cystatin‐C, an endogenous protease inhibitor less influenced by muscle mass, has been used to determine renal function and is associated with outcomes among patients with advanced heart failure.16 In a study by Pinsino and colleagues, cystatin‐C was compared with serum creatinine in patients with advanced heart failure undergoing LVAD therapy. Among 116 patients undergoing LVADs, creatinine‐based eGFR improved early post‐LVAD, whereas cystatin‐C‐based eGFR remained stable and correlated to a composite of in‐hospital mortality, renal replacement therapy, or severe right ventricular failure.17 The authors demonstrated that muscle mass, assessed by chest computed tomography, decreased post‐LVAD placement, and this reduction correlated to a decline in serum creatinine. Significant gains typically follow the early decrease in skeletal mass over the subsequent 6 months of LVAD support.18The presumption that LVADs improve cardiorenal syndrome is thus questioned by the aggregate data implicating more complex cardiorenal interactions. More recently, Walther and colleagues identified 5 eGFR trajectories among 4615 patients implanted between 2016 and 2017. Trajectories in the first 2 groups were similar to the current study. However, the third group identified patients with likely intrinsic renal disease with a postimplant decline followed by sustained low renal function. A fourth group demonstrated significant improvement; these patients were likely to have acute decompensated heart failure with associated renal dysfunction (type 1 cardiorenal syndrome). Finally, the fifth and smallest group had severe postimplant renal injury, followed by recovery in survivors.19Despite improved long‐term LVAD outcomes with the current US Food and Drug Administration–approved device, there is ongoing focus on mitigating complications and morbidity. Renal function is a crucial determinant of outcomes. The decline in renal function over time may be multifactorial because of right ventricular dysfunction, venous congestion, reduced pulsatility, and/or ongoing maladaptive neurohormonal mechanisms.20 Furthermore, the influence of race and sex on LVAD outcomes becomes essential, as demonstrated in this current study. Additional investigation is necessary to understand the mechanisms that lead to these outcome differences and how to truly measure renal function in the context of inflammation and sarcopenia that accompanies advanced heart failure.DisclosuresAjith Nair has received consulting fees from Abbott. Dr Lamba has no disclosures to report.Footnotes*Correspondence to: Ajith Nair, MD, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030. Email: ajith.[email protected]eduThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.For Disclosures, see page 3.See Article by Roehm et al.References1 Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, Deswal A, Drazner MH, Dunlay SM, Evers LR, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA guideline for the management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation.2022; 145:e895–e1032. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063LinkGoogle Scholar2 Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Cleveland JC, Cowger JA, Hall S, Salerno CT, Naka Y, Horstmanshof D, Chuang J, Wang A, et al. Five‐year outcomes in patients with fully magnetically levitated vs axial‐flow left ventricular assist devices in the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial. JAMA.2022; 328:1233–1242. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.16197CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Shah P, Yuzefpolskaya M, Hickey GW, Breathett K, Wever‐Pinzon O, Ton VK, Hiesinger W, Koehl D, Kirklin JK, Cantor RS, et al. Twelfth interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support report: readmissions after left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg.2022; 113:722–737. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.12.011CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, Pagani FD, Myers SL, Stevenson LW, Givertz MM, Young JB. Quantifying the effect of cardiorenal syndrome on mortality after left ventricular assist device implant. J Heart Lung Transplant.2013; 32:1205–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2013.09.001CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, Birks E, Lietz K, Moore SA, Morgan JA, Arabia F, Bauman ME, Buchholz HW, et al. The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant.2013; 32:157–187. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2012.09.013CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Bansal N, Hailpern SM, Katz R, Hall YN, Kurella Tamura M, Kreuter W, O'Hare AM. Outcomes associated with left ventricular assist devices among recipients with and without end‐stage renal disease. JAMA Intern Med.2018; 178:204–209. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.4831CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Walther CP, Niu J, Winkelmayer WC, Cheema FH, Nair AP, Morgan JA, Fedson SE, Deswal A, Navaneethan SD. Implantable ventricular assist device use and outcomes in people with end‐stage renal disease. J Am Heart Assoc.2018; 7:e008664. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.008664LinkGoogle Scholar8 Parikh U, Lamba H, Ajmal M, Vincent J, Walther C, Shafii A, Nair A, Civitello A, Liao K, Chatterjee S. Predictors of renal replacement therapy in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices. J Artif Organs.2021; 24:207–216. doi: 10.1007/s10047‐020‐01239‐zCrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Topkara VK, Coromilas EJ, Garan AR, Li RC, Castagna F, Jennings DL, Yuzefpolskaya M, Takeda K, Takayama H, Sladen RN, et al. Preoperative proteinuria and reduced glomerular filtration rate predicts renal replacement therapy in patients supported with continuous‐flow left ventricular assist devices. Circ Heart Fail.2016; 9:e002897. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.115.002897LinkGoogle Scholar10 Smith GL, Lichtman JH, Bracken MB, Shlipak MG, Phillips CO, DiCapua P, Krumholz HM. Renal impairment and outcomes in heart failure: systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol.2006; 47:1987–1996. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.11.084CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Rangaswami J, Bhalla V, Blair JEA, Chang TI, Costa S, Lentine KL, Lerma EV, Mezue K, Molitch M, Mullens W, et al. Cardiorenal syndrome: classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment strategies: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation.2019; 139:e840–e878. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000664LinkGoogle Scholar12 Roehm B, Hedayati S, Vest A, Gulati G, Miao J, Tighiouart H, Weiner D, Inker L. Long‐term changes in eGFR in LVAD recipients: a longitudinal joint model analysis. J Am Heart Assoc.2022; 11:e025993. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025993Google Scholar13 Yalcin YC, Muslem R, Veen KM, Soliman OI, Hesselink DA, Constantinescu AA, Brugts JJ, Manintveld OC, Fudim M, Russell SD, et al. Impact of continuous flow left ventricular assist device therapy on chronic kidney disease: a longitudinal multicenter study. J Card Fail.2020; 26:333–341. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2020.01.010CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Yoshioka D, Takayama H, Colombo PC, Yuzefpolskaya M, Garan AR, Topkara VK, Han J, Kurlansky P, Naka Y, Takeda K. Changes in end‐organ function in patients with prolonged continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device support. Ann Thorac Surg.2017; 103:717–724. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.12.018CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Brisco MA, Kimmel SE, Coca SG, Putt ME, Jessup M, Tang WW, Parikh CR, Testani JM. Prevalence and prognostic importance of changes in renal function after mechanical circulatory support. Circ Heart Fail.2014; 7:68–75. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.113.000507LinkGoogle Scholar16 Dupont M, Wu Y, Hazen SL, Tang WH. Cystatin C identifies patients with stable chronic heart failure at increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. Circ Heart Fail.2012; 5:602–609. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.112.966960LinkGoogle Scholar17 Pinsino A, Mondellini GM, Royzman EA, Hoffman KL, D'Angelo D, Mabasa M, Gaudig A, Zuver AM, Masoumi A, Garan AR, et al. Cystatin C‐ versus creatinine‐based assessment of renal function and prediction of early outcomes among patients with a left ventricular assist device. Circ Heart Fail.2020; 13:e006326. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.006326LinkGoogle Scholar18 Vest AR, Wong WW, Chery J, Coston A, Telfer L, Lawrence M, Celkupa D, Kiernan MS, Couper G, Kawabori M, et al. Skeletal muscle mass recovery early after left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with advanced systolic heart failure. Circ Heart Fail.2022; 15:e009012. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.121.009012LinkGoogle Scholar19 Walther CP, Benoit JS, Lamba HK, Civitello AB, Erickson KF, Mondal NK, Liao KK, Navaneethan SD. Distinctive kidney function trajectories following left ventricular assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant.2022; 41:1798–1807. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2022.08.024CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 El Nihum LI, Manian N, Arunachalam P, Al Abri Q, Guha A. Renal dysfunction in patients with left ventricular assist device. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2022; 18:19–26. doi: 10.14797/mdcvj.1146CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesLong‐Term Changes in Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients: A Longitudinal Joint Model AnalysisBethany Roehm, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2023;12 February 7, 2023Vol 12, Issue 3Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.028450PMID: 36734343 Originally publishedFebruary 3, 2023 Keywordsleft ventricular assist devicerenal failureheart‐assist devicesEditorialsheart failuresarcopeniacardiorenal syndromePDF download SubjectsCardiomyopathyCardiorenal SyndromeHeart Failure