Right Ventricular Assist Device Research Articles

Hemodynamical Evaluation of a New Surgically Implanted Pulsatile Right Ventricular Assist Device Driven by a Conventional Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump Console.

Severe right heart failure, often overlooked and challenging to manage, has prompted a growing interest in innovative approaches to provide functional support. This study uses experimentation in large porcine models to introduce a novel prototype of a pulsatile mechanical circulatory support device and document its effects when deployed as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD). The pulsatile ventricular assist platform (pVAP), featuring a membrane pump driven by an intra-aortic balloon pump console, actively generates pulsatile flow to propel right ventricular blood into the pulmonary artery. This novel prototype demonstrates promising potential in addressing the challenges of right heart failure management. After preliminary in vitro assessments, the pVAP was tested on seven porcine models in a healthy state and after the induction of right ventricular failure. During the procedure, a set of standard (ie, standard-of-care) hemodynamic measurements was obtained. Additionally, invasive pressure-volume loop analysis was employed to examine left ventricular hemodynamics. Results indicated that activation of the pVAP during right ventricular failure significantly improved systemic hemodynamics and enhanced left ventricular function. This study sheds light on the potential of the pVAP in managing right heart failure.

Effect of RVAD Cannulation Length on Right Ventricular Thrombosis Risk: An In Silico Investigation

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used off-label as long-term support of the right heart due to the lack of a clinically approved durable right VAD (RVAD). Whilst various techniques to reduce RVAD inflow cannula protrusion have been described, the implication of the protrusion length on right heart blood flow and subsequent risk of thrombosis remains poorly understood. This study investigates the influence of RVAD diaphragmatic cannulation length on right ventricular thrombosis risk using a patient-specific right ventricle in silico model validated with particle image velocimetry. Four cannulation lengths (5, 10, 15 and 25 mm) were evaluated in a one-way fluid–structure interaction simulation with boundary conditions generated from a lumped parameter model, simulating a biventricular supported condition. Simulation results demonstrated that the 25-mm cannulation length exhibited a lower thrombosis risk compared to 5-, 10- and 15-mm cannulation lengths due to improved flow energy distribution (25.2%, 24.4% and 17.8% increased), reduced stagnation volume (72%, 68% and 49% reduction), better washout rate (13.0%, 11.6% and 9.1% faster) and lower blood residence time (6% reduction). In the simulated scenario, our findings suggest that a longer RVAD diaphragmatic cannulation length may be beneficial in lowering thrombosis risk; however, further clinical studies are warranted.

Right Ventricular Assist Device Placement During Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Is Associated With Improved Survival.

Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a significant cause of mortality in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Although right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) can treat RVF in the perioperative LVAD period, liberal employment before RVF is not well established. We therefore compared the survival outcomes between proactive RVAD placement at the time of LVAD implantation with a bailout strategy in patients with RVF. Retrospectively, 75 adult patients who underwent durable LVAD implantation at our institution and had an RVAD placed proactively before LVAD implantation or as a bailout strategy postoperatively due to hemodynamically unstable RVF were evaluated. Patients treated with a proactive RVAD strategy had lower Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) and a higher proportion of these required temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) preoperatively. Preoperative hemodynamic profiling showed a low pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi) score of 1.8 ± 1.4 and 1.6 ± 0.94 (p = 0.42) in the bailout RVAD and proactive RVAD groups, respectively. Survival at 3, 6, and 12 months post-LVAD implantation was statistically significantly higher in patients who received a proactive RVAD. Thus, proactive RVAD implantation is associated with short- and medium-term survival benefits compared to a bailout strategy in RVF patients undergoing LVAD placement.

Fully Magnetically Levitated Durable Biventricular Assist Device Insertion

Durable mechanical circulatory support options for patients with biventricular failure are limited. One emerging strategy is the use of two fully magnetically levitated durable ventricular assist devices (HeartMate 3s) in a biventricular configuration. The use of a HeartMate 3 as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) requires several complex technical modifications. Here, we provide step-wise detailed figures and a comprehensive description of bilateral HeartMate 3 insertion, with a particular focus on right atrial inflow cannulation for the RVAD. Potential pitfalls and solutions are also described.

Treatment Strategies and Outcomes of Right Ventricular Failure Post Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: An INTERMACS Analysis.

Right heart failure (RHF) management after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation includes inotropes, right ventricular mechanical support, and heart transplantation. The purpose of this study is to compare different RHF treatment strategies in patients with a magnetically levitated centrifugal LVAD. A total of 6,632 Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) patients from 2013 to 2020 were included. Of which, 769 (69.6%) patients (group 1) were supported with inotropes (≥14 days post-LVAD implantation), 233 (21.1%) patients (group 2) were supported with temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) that was implanted during LVAD implant, 77 (7.0%) patients (group 3) with durable centrifugal RVAD implanted during the LVAD implant, and 26 (2.4%) patients (group 4) were supported with RVAD (temporary or permanent), which was implanted at a later stage. Groups 1 and 4 had higher survival rates in comparison with group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.513, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 0.402-0.655, p < 0.001, versus group 1) and group 3 (HR = 0.461, 95% CIs = 0.320-0.666, p < 0.001, versus group 1). Patients in group 3 showed higher heart transplantation rates at 12 and 36 months as compared with group 1 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 21.9% and 37.4%, respectively), group 2 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 25.8% and 39.3%, respectively), and group 4 (40.4% and 46.6% vs. 3.8% and 12.0%, respectively). Severe RHF post-LVAD is associated with poor survival. Patients with LVAD who during the perioperative period are in need of right ventricular temporary or durable mechanical circulatory support constitute a group at particular risk. Improvement of devices tailored for right ventricular support is mandatory for further evolution of the field.

Implantation of HeartMate III ventricular assist devices in children after surgical treatment of complex congenital heart defect: first experience

Background. There is quite a high number of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) who have undergone surgical treatment for complex congenital heart defects. Implantation of mechanical circulatory support systems is the only treatment option for patients with refractory end-stage heart failure. Only a few centers have experience in implantation of ventricular assist devices (VAD) in children, which is a major challenge for modern pediatric cardiac surgery. Objective: to present our first experience of implantation of HeartMate III VADs in patients after surgical correction of complex congenital heart defects. Materials and methods. From 2021 to 2022, at Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, four HeartMate III systems were implanted in children with advanced HF, who had previously undergone surgery for a complex congenital heart defect. In one case, aortic valve implantation was carried out simultaneously with VAD implantation. Results. All patients were discharged from the center. One patient developed right-sided heart failure intraoperatively, which required the use of a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) for 8 days. There were no complications from the central nervous system, bleeding, pump thrombosis, or infection. Conclusion. HeartMate III can be implanted in patients with body weight ≥21 kg and BSA ≥0.88 m2 . Children’s tolerance to physical activity increases, they are fully adapted socially, and can attend school.

Abstract 19044: Upfront Right Ventricular Assist Device at the Time of Lvad Implantation Reduces Mortality, Stroke, and Major Bleeding Risk

Introduction: Right ventricular failure (RVF) is a major cause for increased morbidity and mortality after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) implantation. Patients who are high-risk for developing RVF would benefit from early support via right ventricular assist devices (RVADs) to improve hemodynamics and reduce RVF associated complications. However, current RVF prediction models have limited predictive value. To reduce RVF complications, select institutions have implemented upfront RVAD use in those deemed high-risk with mixed results. In this study, we examined our institutional cohort of high-risk RVF patients who received either emergent or upfront RVADs during LVAD implantation and associated one-year outcomes. Hypothesis: Does providing temporary RVAD support upfront to high-risk patients during LVAD implantation impact associated complications and outcomes. Goals/Aims: To assess one-year clinical outcomes for high-risk patients receiving RVADs during LVAD implantation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent placement of both LVAD and upfront RVAD at our institution between January 2015 and August 2022. Patients were stratified by the type of RVAD placed (percutaneous vs central) and timing of support (upfront vs emergent). Outcomes were assessed up to one-year post-LVAD implantation. Results/Data: Of the 50 patients reviewed, 36 (72%) underwent upfront RVAD implantations and 14 (28%) underwent emergent RVAD implantations. The upfront cohort consisted of 16 of the total 19 INTERMACS 1 patients, 15 of total 21 INTERMACS 2 patients, 4 of total 9 INTERMACS 3 patients, and 1 of 1 INTERMACS 4 patients. Compared to emergent RVADs, patients who received upfront RVAD had significantly decreased one-year mortality (17.1% vs 50.0%, p=0.031), decreased cerebrovascular accidents (2.8% vs 28.6%, p=0.018), and decreased major bleeding (0% vs 40%, p=0.005). There was no significant difference in the length of stay, arrhythmias, gastrointestinal bleed, hemodialysis requirement, driveline infections or vasoplegia. Conclusion: Patients receiving upfront RVAD at the time of cf-LVAD implantation have improved survival and decreased incidence of cerebrovascular accidents.

Abstract 16077: Aortic Valve Thrombus and Acute Right Ventricular Failure in Recent Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipient: A Rare Case

Case reports of aortic root thrombus with embolism leading to right ventricular (RV) failure in patients left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are extremely rare in the literature, and often result in significant mortality. This is a case of a 52-year-old male who recently underwent destination-therapy HeartMate 3 LVAD implantation, on chronic warfarin, with history of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, who presented with chest pain and dyspnea. Initial evaluation was remarkable for tachycardia, troponin of 0.7 ng/dl, BNP 705, and INR 1.68. Argatroban was initiated, along with diuresis for volume overload on examination. Transthoracic echocardiogram showed stable findings with borderline RV dysfunction. On the following day, persistent chest pain and uptrend of troponin to 34 ng/dl were concerning for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and plans were for left heart catheterization. However, a TEE revealed partial thrombus layering in the aortic valve and sinus of Valsalva with concerns for embolization through the right coronary ostia. RV assessment showed evidence of severe dilation and acute RV failure. Patient underwent emergent RV assist device (RVAD) placement (ProtekDuo and CentriMag) by cardiothoracic surgery. After mechanical RV support, there was progressive improvement of its function, and successful RVAD decannulation was attained. The patient was recently seen in the heart failure clinic with sustained recovery. Cases of aortic root thrombus with embolism leading to ACS in LVAD patients are extremely rare. As in our case, troponin elevation, subtherapeutic INR, and aortic root thrombus, allowed early clinical recognition and appropriate management of patient’s RV failure, which is imperative for successful outcomes in LVAD patients. Aortic valve thrombus should be considered in LVAD patients presenting with ACS, and early invasive strategy without valve assessment should be cautioned.

Left ventricular assist device implantation and concomitant mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The management of concomitant valvular lesions in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a topic of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the existing evidence on postoperative outcomes following LVAD implantation, with and without concomitant MV surgery. A systematic database search was conducted as per PRISMA guidelines, of original articles comparing LVAD alone to LVAD plus concomitant MV surgery up to February 2023. The primary outcomes assessed were overall mortality and early mortality, while secondary outcomes included stroke, need for right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation, postoperative mitral valve regurgitation, major bleeding, and renal dysfunction. The meta-analysis included 10 studies comprising 32 184 patients. It revealed that concomitant MV surgery during LVAD implantation did not significantly affect overall mortality (OR:0.83; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.29; p = 0.40), early mortality (OR:1.17; 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.17; p = 0.63), stroke, need for RVAD implantation, postoperative mitral valve regurgitation, major bleeding, or renal dysfunction. These findings suggest that concomitant MV surgery appearsnot to confer additional benefits in terms of these clinical outcomes. Based on the available evidence, concomitant MV surgery during LVAD implantation does not appear to have a significant impact on postoperative outcomes. However, decision-making regarding MV surgery should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors and characteristics. Further research with prospective studies focusing on specific patient populations and newer LVAD devices is warranted to provide more robust evidence and guide clinical practice in the management of valvular lesions in LVAD recipients.

Management of severe tricuspid valve regurgitation due to ruptured papillary muscle in a patient with mediastinitis early after heart transplant.

Even though severe tricuspid regurgitation is not uncommon after cardiac transplantation, primary severe tricuspid regurgitation is rare. We present such a case with additional complexities. The patient was 44-year-old man with a HeartWare durable left ventricular assist device (Heartware Inc) who received a temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) with a ProtekDuo cannula (LivaNova Inc USA) for refractory ventricular fibrillation and underwent a heart transplant as United Network for Organ Sharing Status 1, in the presence of partially compensated cardiogenic shock, renal failure. Given complex re-operative surgery in a volume-overloaded patient with unknown pulmonary vascular resistance, an RVAD cannula was preserved and re- inserted during cardiac transplant. Postoperatively he required hemodialysis, had severe primary tricuspid regurgitation discovered after RVAD removal and developed Enterobacter mediastinitis. He underwent complex tricuspid valve repair for flail tricuspid leaflet due to ruptured papillary muscle likely due to RVAD cannula injury, after multiple mediastinal washouts and was followed by delayed chest reconstruction. The patient is doing well, 6 months after discharge to home, asymptomatic, without re-admissions, on renal recovery path, with no tricuspid regurgitation and good biventricular function. Replacing the tricuspid valve in presence of hemodialysis catheter, immunosuppression and mediastinitis could be high risk for endocarditis. Even though we have short-term follow-up, tricuspid valve repair can be an effective way of managing primary severe regurgitation especially when there is a desire or need to avoid valve replacement.

Widening care gap in VAD therapy

The removal of the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) due to pump malfunctions and inferior outcomes compared to HeartMate 3 (HM3) in adults has created a care gap for younger patients. It is unclear if the reported HVAD survival differs by age and if the initial experience with HM3 can bridge the gap. Using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Intermacs and Pedimacs registries, durable ventricular assist device (VAD) implants between September 2012 and December 2021 were identified. Young adults (YA) were defined as <40years old in Intermacs. Patients were excluded if they had an isolated right VAD (RVAD) or were implanted as destination therapy (DT). Survival analysis by Kaplan-Meier (KM) and competing outcomes curveswas performed, and 1-year survival is reported. The Intermacs cohort consisted of YA (n=1226; HVAD 818; HM3 408) with a median age of YA of 32.07 (26.66-36.27) yearsand weight (wt) of83.2 (68-104.2) kg. Most had cardiomyopathy (CM) (92.2%). The Pedimacs cohort was 668patients (median age 9.47 [1.82-14.23] years, wt 27.2 [10-57.05]kg), and most also had CM (70.5%). Device breakdown includedHVAD (n=326), Berlin EXCOR(n=277), and HM3 (n=65). HVAD survival differed by age in adults, with YA fairing better than adults >40 years old (88.8%vs79.4% at 1year, p<0.0001). YA survival was also better compared to Pedimacs patient (88.9%vs83.7%, p=0.0002), but when competing events were analyzed, mortality was similar to YA (9.2% vs9.6%, p=0.1) with a higher proportion of patient undergoing transplant at 1 year in Pedimacs (74% vs31.3%, p<0.0001). Survival by device differed between HVAD and HM3 in YA (88.8% vs94.4%, p=0.0025). This difference in device survival was not seen in all children (83.7% vs87.3%, p=0.21), including those ≥25kg. Adverse event profiles also differed across the groups with adults seeing less adverse events with the HM3, but the same was not found (including stroke) in the pediatric cohort. Survival outcomes for patients between 10 and 25kg were similar with the HVAD compared to the Berlin Heart EXCOR(p=0.4290), with similarities in stroke risk. The removal of the HVAD device may result in a care gap in younger patient whose survival outcomes do not mirror that of older adults. The HM3 can fill a portion of this gap with good survival, but there remains a subset of pediatric patients that, based on initial HM3 use, will no longer have access to intracorporeal support and therefore, despite reasonable outcomes with the Berlin Heart EXCOR,will not be able to be discharged home. Lastly, it is essential that future changes to the availability of devices take into account the various patient populations that utilize the device to avoid unintended consequences of access inequality.

Managing Right Ventricular Failure After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implant at a Destination Therapy Center

Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant is associated with an increased survival in patients with end-stage heart failure, severe right ventricular failure requiring a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) placement is associated with increased short-term morbidity and mortality. Patients not eligible for transplant have limited options, which may impact decision-making and outcomes at nontransplant centers. We conducted a retrospective review of all LVAD implants at our nontransplant center. Primary stratification was by the need for a postoperative RVAD implant. The primary outcome was survival. The Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to further evaluate mortality. From 2017 to 2022, 128 patients underwent a primary LVAD implant and 24 (18.75%) required a perioperative RVAD placement. RVAD implant was associated with increased operative mortality (1.92% vs 33.33%, p <0.01) and decreased 1-year (91.29% vs 60.60%, p <0.01) and 2-year survival (84.05% vs 36.36%, p <0.01). However, in patients who survived their index hospitalization, 1-year (93.00% vs 91.67%, p=0.78) and 2-year (86.16% vs 55.00%, p=0.10) mortality were similar. On multivariable analysis, the need for a RVAD was associated with an increased hazard of 1-year (5.60 [1.96 to 16.01], p <0.01) and 2-year (5.17 [2.01 to 13.28], p <0.01) mortality. In conclusion, our series from a nontransplant center suggests that patients who survive the implant have acceptable short-term survival, even if they do not have a transplant option; thus, carefully selected patients with biventricular failure may benefit from an LVAD implant, even if an RVAD is needed.

P63: Preemptive Temporary Right Ventricular Assist Device Implantation For Severe Biventricular Heart Failure: A Case Series

Purpose: We sought to investigate the clinical results of preemptive temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) placement with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation for anticipated right ventricular failure. Methods: Patients at risk for right ventricular failure were identified by the heart team. After median sternotomy, Protec-duo (LivaNova, London, UK) dual-stage cannula was inserted from the right internal jugular vein under fluoroscopy guidance, and advanced into the pulmonary artery to the bifurcation of the main pulmonary artery. This was then connected to the venous drainage from the right atrium for cardio pulmonary bypass (CPB). After LVAD implantation, we connected the Protec-duo cannula to the RVAD with oxygenator, and weaned CPB (Figure). Results: A total of 11 patients have received BiVAD implantation with this technique. The median age of patients was 55 years [Interquartile range (IQR): 51 – 63.5] and all patients were male. 63.6 % (7/11) of the patients were INTERMACS profile 1 or 2. Preoperatively, the median pulmonary artery pulsatility index was 4.0 [1.5 – 4.9] and median right ventricular stroke work index was 454.1 g/m/beat/m2 [436.5 – 530.2]. Postoperatively, the oxygenators were removed on median postoperative day (POD) 3.5 [3 – 5]. Patients received mechanical ventilation for a median of 4 days [1.5 – 12] and RVADs were explanted on median POD 8 [7 – 19) with local anesthesia. Perioperative complications included delayed sternal closure [54.5% (6/11)], re-exploration for bleeding [18% (2/11)], acute kidney injury [36% (4/11)], and heparin induced thrombocytopenia [18% (2/11)]. 30-day mortality was 0% (0/11). Conclusion: Preemptive temporary RVAD implantation strategy for right heart failure post-LVAD showed acceptable clinical outcomes without any 30-day mortality.

P23: Preservation of Pulsatility with Universal Ventricular Assist Device: An In Vitro Assessment of Biventricular Support

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the ability and performance of the Universal Ventricular Assist Device (UVAD) to maintain pulsatility when used as a biventricular assist device (BVAD) through an in vitro experiment utilizing a pulsatile biventricular mock circulatory loop. Methods: The UVAD pumps were evaluated in a dual configuration (BVAD) in the simulated circulatory model under conditions of left heart failure (HF), right HF, and moderate/severe biventricular HF. Measurements of total flow, pulse pressure in the aorta, pulse augmentation factor (PAF), energy-equivalent pressure (EEP), and surplus hemodynamic energy (SHE) were taken at various pump speeds to assess pulsatility. Results: The association between the maximum and minimum pressures and various parameters of the pump was determined during the cardiac cycle. It was observed that the pulse pressure increased across all heart conditions (Figure 1). The PAF ranged from 17-35% in healthy, LHF, RHF, and mild BHF conditions, with the highest PAF, 90%, being observed in the severe BHF condition. EEP correlated with LVAD flow in all groups (R2 = 0.87-0.97) and increased from baseline in all cases. SHE peaked at approximately 5-6 L/min of LVAD support and tended to dissipate surplus energy at higher LVAD pump flow. The greatest decrease in SHE from baseline, 53%, was observed in the mild BHF condition with the highest levels of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and right ventricular assist device (RVAD) support. Conclusion: The UVAD successfully demonstrated the ability to preserve pulsatility in vitro, and to optimize cardiac output, as an isolated circulatory support device option (RVAD or LVAD), and when used for BVAD support.Figure 1. The relationships between LVAD/RVAD pump flow and aortic pulse pressure/PAF/EEP/SHE in each heart condition. LVAD, left ventricular assist device; RVAD, right ventricular assist device; AoP, aortic pressure; EEP, energy-equivalent pressure; SHE, surplus hemodynamic energy.

SHOCK5: Utilization of an RP Flex Impella to support Right Ventricular Dysfunction post Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement

Background: Right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) during Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) placement is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Right Ventricular Assist Device (RVAD) implantation has been shown to reduce the severity of RVD and can improve overall outcomes. We describe the first use of the RP Flex Impella (Abiomed, Danvers MA) RVAD to support RVD during durable LVAD HeartMate 3 implantation(Abbott, Chicago, IL). Case: A 68 year old female with a history of postpartum cardiomyopathy on home inotropic support for 4 years presented with acute exacerbation of heart failure in the setting of sustained ventricular tachycardia. She was evaluated for LVAD however preoperatively there were concerns for risk of RVD due to pulmonary artery pressure index (PAPI) 1.5 and echocardiogram with moderate right ventricular (RV) dilation and significantly reduced function which had progressed as compared to prior assessments. It was decided during the pre implant meeting to support the RV given borderline parameters despite high dose inotropic support. The RP flex impella was placed via the right internal jugular vein and provided 2.8L support. A sodium bicarbonate purge was utilized instead of heparin due to bleeding concerns. By postoperative day (POD) 1 epinephrine and inhaled nitric oxide were successfully titrated down to facilitate early extubation and systemic heparin was started with a goal PTT 50-60 along with aspirin 81mg. Central venous pressure (CVP) remained 8-12mmHg with PAPI 1.2-1.9 over the next few days. RV function on echo remained mildly reduced and LVAD parameters and hemodynamics were stable. Based on the ability to wean inotropes with stable hemodynamics, formal wean occurred on POD4 with reduction to 1.5L flow. Hemodynamics remained unchanged with CVP 10, PA 30/15, PAPI 1.5. Low dose milrinone remained for RV support and the Impella was removed POD 5 at bedside without complication. Post removal RV dilation and drop in PIs resulted in iNO therapy, which was quickly transitioned to sildenafil. Inotropes were fully weaned off POD 12 and the patient was discharged to acute rehab on POD 16 off inotropes and on sildenafil. Throughout this course, renal function remained within the patient’s normal range and the patient was ambulatory from POD 6. Conclusion: This experience describes the first use of RP flex impella to support RVD during durable LVAD placement. The RP flex impella offers a small, percutaneous option for RV support with ease of use and easy bedside removal due to small sheath size. Early use of the RP flex, preventing further sequelae of RVD allowed for adequate support, bypassing the need for surgical RVAD and thus a shorter recovery than traditionally required. Additionally this case adds to the growing literature of RVAD utilization to improve outcomes in patients with marginal RV function for a successful durable LVAD.

Anesthetic management for withdrawal from a right ventricular assist device and Fontan procedure in a patient with an implantable left ventricular assist device for fulminant cardiomyopathy

BackgroundWe herein report the anesthetic management for extracardiac conduit–total cavopulmonary connection (EC-TCPC) for weaning from an extracorporeal right ventricular assist device (RVAD) in a patient with an implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for fulminant cardiomyopathy.Case presentationA 24-year-old man developed fulminant cardiomyopathy and was placed on a biventricular assist device (BiVAD) comprising an implantable LVAD and an extracorporeal RVAD. The Fontan procedure was performed to wean the patient from the RVAD and allow him to be discharged home. Atrial septal defect creation, right ventricular suture, and tricuspid valve closure were then simultaneously performed to ensure sufficient left ventricular preload to drive the LVAD. Furthermore, to keep the central venous pressure lower, the inflow cannula of the LVAD was oriented in the correct direction.ConclusionThis is the first report of anesthetic management of the Fontan procedure in a patient with a BiVAD.

Experience with percutaneous right ventricular support in the early post-left ventricular assist device implantation period (clinical case report and literature reviews)

Implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a state-of-the-art treatment for adults and children with end-stage heart failure. The early and late period after LVAD implantation can be severely complicated. Right ventricular failure (RVF) still remains a common complication after LVAD implantation. RVF is the cause of reduced post-implant survival. We suggest that an additional temporary or permanent right ventricular assist device (RVAD) is an effective treatment for LVAD-associated RVF. In this clinical case report, we describe the medical history of a pediatric patient (14 years old) with severe heart failure (PediMACS Level 1) against a background of dilated cardiomyopathy. The patient required peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) prior to urgent LVAD (HM3) implantation. In the early post-LVAD implantation (1 POD) period, the patient presented with hemodynamic and echocardiographic events of acute RVF that was resistant to drug therapy (inotropic/vasopressor support, iNO) and required mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with a preoperatively implanted VA-ECMO. In the LVAD-associated RVF scenario, VA-ECMO as a means of total cardiac bypass is a non-physiological MCS method and, therefore, undesirable. In this clinical situation, our solution was to use a paracorporeal centrifugal blood pump for temporary right heart support. A RVAD was assembled using percutaneous cannulation in two sites and a modification of the pre-existing VA-ECMO circuit. For RVAD, we used an ECMO cannula previously installed through the femoral vein (26 F) and added a reverse venous cannula (22 F) through the right internal jugular vein into the pulmonary trunk. To facilitate the passage of the return cannula into the pulmonary artery, we used a contralateral sheath (6 F, 40 cm) and an Amplatz Super Stiff guidewire under radiological control. The oxygenator was removed from the circuit on day 2 of RVAD. Central hemodynamics (reduction in right atrial pressure (RAP) to 10 mm Hg, increase in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) to 14 mm Hg), as well as right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) volume characteristics all improved. These observations allowed us to optimize the performance of the implantable LVAD (increase in flow rate to 4.2 l/min or 2.1 l/min/m2). The duration of paracorporeal RVAD after LVAD implantation was 7 days with an average flow rate of 2.3 ± 0.2 l/min. Postoperative treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) lasted for 15 days. The patient was discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 34.

Timing and Outcomes of Concurrent and Sequential Biventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Analysis

BackgroundBiventricular heart failure remains a clinically challenging condition to manage. Available literature describing the use of durable biventricular assist device (BiVAD) support has numerous limitations hindering the development of useful treatment algorithms. Analysis of BiVAD use within a large multicenter data set is needed to clarify outcomes associated with this therapy. MethodsThe Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs database was queried to identify adults aged ≥18 years who received durable circulatory support from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2220. The data set was divided into the following cohorts: (1) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) only (n = 27,325), (2) LVAD and concurrent right ventricular assist device (RVAD) (n = 1090), and (3) LVAD and sequential RVAD (n = 556). Propensity score matching was used to compare 1-year mortality and adverse events between concurrent (n = 565) and sequential BiVADs (n = 565). ResultsOverall survival within 1 year was significantly worse for the BiVAD cohort compared with the LVAD-only cohort (12-month survival: 50.8% vs 82.6%; log-rank P < .001). In a propensity-matched cohort, patients implanted with a BiVAD concurrently had an improved survival compared with those implanted an LVAD and an RVAD sequentially (12-month survival: 55.8% vs 41.8%; log-rank P < .001). Early (<3 months) adverse event rates were higher among patients receiving sequential BiVADs for bleeding, infection, neurologic dysfunction, and renal dysfunction (P < .01). ConclusionsAfter matching for patient and disease characteristics, patients with sequential BiVAD implantation have worse outcomes than patients with concurrent BiVAD implantation.

Efficacy of levosimendan infusion in patients undergoing a left ventricular assist device implant in a propensity score matched analysis of the EUROMACS registry-the Euro LEVO-LVAD study.

Early right-sided heart failure (RHF) was seen in 22% of recipients of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). However, the optimal treatment of post-LVAD RHF is not well known. Levosimendan has proven to be effective in patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with end-stage heart failure. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of levosimendan on post-LVAD RHF and 30-day and 1-year mortality. The EUROMACS Registry was used to identify adults with mainstream continuous-flow LVAD implants who were treated with preoperative levosimendan compared to a propensity matched control cohort. In total, 3661 patients received mainstream LVAD, of which 399 (11%) were treated with levosimendan pre-LVAD. Patients given levosimendan had a higher EUROMACS RHF score [4 (2- 5.5) vs 2 (2- 4); P < 0.001], received more right ventricular assist devices (RVAD) [32 (8%) vs 178 (5.5%); P = 0.038] and stayed longer in the intensive care unit post-LVAD implant [19 (8-35) vs 11(5-25); P < 0.001]. Yet, there was no significant difference in the rate of RHF, 30-day, or 1-year mortality. Also, in the matched cohort (357 patients taking levosimendan compared to an average of 622 controls across 20 imputations), we found no evidence for a difference in postoperative severe RHF, RVAD implant rate, length of stay in the intensive care unit or 30-day and 1-year mortality. In this analysis of the EUROMACS registry, we found no evidence for an association between levosimendan and early RHF or death, albeit patients taking levosimendan had much higher risk profiles. For a definitive conclusion, a multicentre, randomized study is warranted.

"Beyond waking and walking. Intensive rehabilitation in patients requiring extended durations of advanced mechanical circulatory support: A case series".

Physical therapy (PT) utilization in patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been reported; however, little is known about intensive rehabilitation and associated outcomes in patients requiring extended complex MCS and/or ECMO support. Authors sought to explore safety, feasibility and outcomes associated with active rehabilitation in patients requiring prolonged advanced MCS/ECMO support. Single-center retrospective series evaluated functional, clinical, and longitudinal outcomes of sample of eight critically ill, adult (≥18 years of age) patients who underwent a intensive rehabilitation while receiving prolonged MCS/ECMO through advanced configurations including: venovenous (VV-ECMO), venoarterial (VA-ECMO), oxygenator with right ventricular assist device (Oxy-RVAD) and right ventricular assist device (RVAD). 406 sessions were conducted; 246 during provision of advanced MCS/ECMO support. Incidence of major adverse events-accidental decannulation, migration of cannulas, circuit failure, hemorrhage, major flow limitations, and major hemodynamic instability-was 1.2 events per 100 sessions. None of reported major adverse events impeded longitudinal ability to participate in PT. Increased time to PT initiation was associated with a statistically significant increase in intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (β1 1.93, CI 0.55–3.30) and reduced ambulatory distance during last session on MCS/ECMO (β1 -47.64, CI - 93.93, −1.66). All patients survived to hospital discharge and 12 months from sentinel hospitalization. Amongst those patients discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation center ( n = 4), all were discharged home within 3 months. Findings support the safety and feasibility of active rehabilitational PT in patients requiring extended durations of advanced MCS/ECMO support. Moreover, it highlights potentially associated benefits of this degree of intensive rehabilitation for these unique patients. Further investigation is needed to identify associations with longitudinal clinical outcomes, as well as predictors of success in this population.