Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device outflow graft stenting: Indications and outcomes

Introduction: Stenosis in the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) outflow graft can be caused by various mechanical and anatomical factors. Increasingly, percutaneous management has been utilized to re-establish adequate CF-LVAD flow. We sought to evaluate indications for such interventions and their outcomes. Methods: An electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature reporting CF-LVAD outflow graft stenting for various etiologies. Twenty-one studies consisting of 26 patients were included in the analysis. Results: Median patient age was 59 years [45.8-67.0] and 65.4% (17/26) were male. 58.3% (14/24) of patients had HeartWare HVAD, 37.5% (9/24) had HeartMate II LVAD, and 4.2% (1/24) had HeartMate III LVAS. Median time from device placement to outflow graft stenting was 24.0 months [7.8-30.4]. 76.9% of patients (20/26) presented with heart failure. 34.6% (9/26) had outflow graft thrombosis, 34.6% (9/26) stenosis, 11.5% (3/26) kinking, 11.5% (3/26) pseudoaneurysm, 3.8% (1/26) external graft compression, and 3.8% (1/26) had a bronchialarterial fistula. 88.5% (23/26) procedures led to immediate flow improvement with the remaining 11.5% (3/26) receiving additional stenting. Post-intervention flows were significantly improved (4.7 L/min [4.1-4.8] post-intervention vs 2.9 L/min [2.0-3.5] initial, p=0.01). 96.2% (25/26) patients were discharged from the hospital. The 30-day mortality was 6.7% (1/15). Overall mortality during the median follow-up of 90 days [7.0-240.0] was 9.5% (2/21). Discussion: Outflow graft stenting appears to effectively alleviate CF-LVAD outflow graft obstruction with low mortality. Longer-term follow up is necessary to determine the longevity of such an intervention but early results are promising

Outcomes of Mechanical Circulatory Support for Giant Cell Myocarditis: A Systematic Review

Treatment of giant cell myocarditis (GCM) can require bridging to orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) or recovery with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Since the roles of MCS and immunotherapy are not well-defined in GCM, we sought to analyze outcomes of patients with GCM who required MCS. A systematic search was performed in June 2019 to identify all studies of biopsy-proven GCM requiring MCS after 2009. We identified 27 studies with 43 patients. Patient-level data were extracted for analysis. Median patient age was 45 (interquartile range (IQR): 32–57) years. 42.1% (16/38) were female. 34.9% (15/43) presented in acute heart failure. 20.9% (9/43) presented in cardiogenic shock. Biventricular (BiVAD) MCS was required in 76.7% (33/43) of cases. Of the 62.8% (27/43) of patients who received immunotherapy, 81.5% (22/27) used steroids combined with at least one other immunosuppressant. Cyclosporine was the most common non-steroidal agent, used in 40.7% (11/27) of regimens. Immunosuppression was initiated before MCS in 59.3% (16/27) of cases, after MCS in 29.6% (8/27), and not specified in 11.1% (3/27). Immunosuppression started prior to MCS was associated with significantly better survival than MCS alone (p = 0.006); 60.5% (26/43) of patients received bridge-to-transplant MCS; 39.5% (17/43) received bridge-to-recovery MCS; 58.5% (24/41) underwent OHT a median of 104 (58–255) days from diagnosis. GCM recurrence after OHT was reported in 8.3% (2/24) of transplanted cases. BiVAD predominates in mechanically supported patients with GCM. Survival and bridge to recovery appear better in patients on immunosuppression, especially if initiated before MCS