Outcomes of patients after successful left ventricular assist device explantation: a EUROMACS study

Aims: Sufficient myocardial recovery with the subsequent explantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) occurs in approximately 1–2% of the cases. However, follow-up data about this condition are scarcely available in the literature. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes and clinical management following LVAD explantation. Methods and results: An analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed to identify all adult patients with myocardial recovery and successful explantation. Pre-implant characteristics were retrieved and compared with the non-recovery patients. The follow-up data after explantation were collected via a questionnaire. A Kaplan–Meier analysis for freedom of the composite endpoint of death, heart transplantation, LVAD reimplantion, or heart failure (HF) relapse was conducted. A total of 45 (1.4%) cases with myocardial recovery resulting in successful LVAD explantation were identified. Compared with those who did not experience myocardial recovery, the explanted patients were younger (44 vs. 56 years, P < 0.001), had a shorter duration of cardiac disease (P < 0.001), and were less likely to have ischaemic cardiomyopathy (9% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Follow-up after explantation could be acquired in 28 (62%) cases. The median age at LVAD implantation was 43 years (inter-quartile range: 29–52),

2019 EACTS Expert Consensus on long-term mechanical circulatory support

Long-term mechanical circulatory support (LT-MCS) is an important treatment modality for patients with severe heart failure. Different devices are available, and many-sometimes contradictory-observations regarding patient selection, surgical techniques, perioperative management and follow-up have been published. With the growing expertise in this field, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) recognized a need for a structured multidisciplinary consensus about the approach to patients with LT-MCS. However, the evidence published so far is insufficient to allow for generation of meaningful guidelines complying with EACTS requirements. Instead, the EACTS presents an expert opinion in the LT-MCS field. This expert opinion addresses patient evaluation and preoperative optimization as well as management of cardiac and non-cardiac comorbidities. Further, extensive operative implantation techniques are summarized and evaluated by leading experts, depending on both patient characteristics and device selection. The faculty recognized that postoperative management is multidisciplinary and includes aspects of intensive care unit stay, rehabilitation, ambulatory care, myocardial recovery and end-of-life care and mirrored this fact in this paper. Additionally, the opinions of experts on diagnosis and management of adverse events including bleeding, cerebrovascular accidents and device malfunction are presented. In this expert consensus, the evidence for the complete management from patient selection to end-of-life care is carefully reviewed with the aim of guiding clinicians in optimizing management of patients considered for or supported by an LT-MCS device

Survival and adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation at left ventricular assist device implantation: an analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support

OBJECTIVES: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a risk factor for mortality and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) and is common in patients with heart failure. This study evaluated survival and adverse events in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and a history of AF in the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support. METHODS: Patients with a continuous-flow LVAD, AF or sinus rhythm (SR) and a follow-up were included. Kaplan-Meier analyses for survival (including a propensity-scored matched analysis), freedom from CVA, pump thrombosis, bleeding and a composite of pump thrombosis/CVA were performed. To correct for covariate imbalance, a Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis was performed after propensity score (PS) matching the groups. Finally, a Cox regression was performed for predictors of lower survival. RESULTS: Overall, 1821 patients (83% male) were included, with a median age of 57 years and a median follow-up of 13.1 months (interquartile range: 4.3-27.7). Preoperative Electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm was AF in 421 (23.1%) and SR in 1400 (76.9%) patients. Patients with pre-LVAD AF had a lower ≤90-day (81.9% vs 87.1%, P = 0.0047) and 4-year (35.4% vs 44.2%, P = 0.0083) survival compared to SR. KM analysis with PS matching groups revealed a trend (P = 0.087) towards decreased survival. Univariable analyses confirmed pre-LVAD AF as a predictor for mortality, but the multivariable analysis did not. No difference in the rate of adverse events was found. An analysis of patients at 24 months revealed a higher rate of CVAs for pre-LVAD AF patients (77% vs 94.3%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pre-LVAD AF undergoing LVAD implantation had a worse survival. However, after performing a multivariate analysis, and PS matching analysis, AF was no longer significant, indicating a worser preoperative condition in these patients. Concerning thrombo-embolic events, only patients with pre-LVAD AF alive beyond 24 months have a higher risk of CVAs

Rate of thromboembolic and bleeding events in patients undergoing concomitant aortic valve surgery with left ventricular assist device implantation

Background: Significant aortic regurgitation at the time of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, requires concomitant aortic valve (AoV) replacement or repair. However, the impact of concomitant AoV surgery on morbidity remains unknown. Therefore, our aim is to determine the impact of concomitant AoV surgery on thromboembolic and bleeding events. Methods: A retrospective IMACS registry study, including patients implanted from 2013 until September 2017. Differences between different concomitant AoV surgery modalities were analyzed. Results: In total, 785 (5.1%) out of 15.267 patients (median age 58 IQR 49–66 years, 79% male) underwent concomitant AoV surgery (median age 63 IQR 54–69 years, 84% male); 386 (49%) patients received biological prostheses, 71 (9%) mechanical prostheses and 328 (42%) AoV repairs. In total, 54 (8%) patients with AoV surgery experienced a thromboembolic event and 1016 (9%) patients with no AoV surgery. Furthermore, concomitant AoV surgery was associated with an increased rate of all and nonsurgical bleedings. Following a multivariable Cox regression, concomitant AoV surgery remained an independent predictor for bleeding events. Conclusions: In LVAD patients undergoing concomitant AoV surgery, thromboembolic event rates were not higher, however both all and nonsurgical bleeding event rates were higher

Outcomes of patients after successful left ventricular assist device explantation: a EUROMACS study

AIMS: Sufficient myocardial recovery with the subsequent explantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) occurs in approximately 1-2% of the cases. However, follow-up data about this condition are scarcely available in the literature. This study aimed to report the long-term outcomes and clinical management following LVAD explantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: An analysis of the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support was performed to identify all adult patients with myocardial recovery and successful explantation. Pre-implant characteristics were retrieved and compared with the non-recovery patients. The follow-up data after explantation were collected via a questionnaire. A Kaplan-Meier analysis for freedom of the composite endpoint of death, heart transplantation, LVAD reimplantion, or heart failure (HF) relapse was conducted. A total of 45 (1.4%) cases with myocardial recovery resulting in successful LVAD explantation were identified. Compared with those who did not experience myocardial recovery, the explanted patients were younger (44 vs. 56 years, P < 0.001), had a shorter duration of cardiac disease (P < 0.001), and were less likely to have ischaemic cardiomyopathy (9% vs. 41.8%, P < 0.001). Follow-up after explantation could be acquired in 28 (62%) cases. The median age at LVAD implantation was 43 years (inter-quartile range: 29-52), and 23 (82%) were male. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was 18% (inter-quartile range: 10-20%), and 60.7% of the patients had Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1 or 2. Aetiologies of HF were dilated cardiomyopathy in 36%, myocarditis in 32%, and ischaemic in 14% of the patients, and 18% had miscellaneous aetiologies. The devices implanted were HeartMate II in 14 (50%), HVAD in 11 (39%), HeartMate 3 in 2 (7%), and 1 unknown with a median duration of support of 410 days (range: 59-1286). The median follow-up after explantation was 26 months (range 0.3-73 months), and 82% of the patients were in New York Heart Association Class I or II. Beta-blockers were prescribed to 85%, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to 71%, and loop diuretics to 50% of the patients, respectively. Freedom from the composite endpoint was 100% after 30 days and 88% after 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: The survival after LVAD explantation is excellent without the need for heart transplantation or LVAD reimplantation. Only a minority of the patients suffer from a relapse of significant HF.status: publishe

Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device Support in the Netherlands

Background:This study aimed to evaluate the changes in heart transplantation (HTx) waiting list mortality following the introduction of the Berlin Heart EXCOR (BH EXCOR) in the Netherlands, as well as the occurrence of adverse events in these children.Methods:A retrospective, single-center study was conducted including all pediatric patients (≤18 years) awaiting HTx. Patients were grouped in two eras based on availability of the BH EXCOR in our center, era I (1998-2006; not available) and era II (2007 to July 31, 2018; available).Results:In total, 87 patients were included, 15 in era I and 72 in era II. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support was required in 1 (7%) patient in era I and in 13 (18%) patients in era II. Overall mortality (7/15 in era I vs 16/72 in era II; 47% vs 22%, P = .06) and transplantation rates (8/15 in era I vs 47/72 in era II; 53% vs 65%, P = .39) did not differ significantly. Eleven (39%) patients of the pediatric ventricular assist device (VAD) population died, with the predominant cause being cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) in eight (29%) patients. Furthermore, 14 (50%) of the pediatric VAD patients survived to transplantation. Adverse events most frequently occurring in VAD patients included CVA in 14 (50%), mostly (68%) within 30 days after VAD implantation, and bleeding requiring rethoracotomy in 14 (50%), all within 30 days after VAD implantation.Conclusions:The introduction of the BH EXCOR has positively impacted the survival of pediatric patients with end-stage heart failure in our center. The predominant cause of death changed from end-stage heart failure in era I to CVA in era II. We emphasize the need for large prospective registry–based studies