Cardiovascular implantable electronic device therapy in patients with left ventricular assist devices: insights from TRAViATA.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting observational data on the survival benefit cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) in patients with LVADs. METHODS: Patients in whom an LVAD was implanted between January 2008 and April 2017 in the multinational Trans-Atlantic Registry on VAD and Transplant (TRAViATA) registry were separated into four groups based on the presence of CIED prior to LVAD implantation: none (n = 146), implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) (n = 239), cardiac resynchronization without defibrillator (CRT-P) (n = 28), and CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) (n = 111). RESULTS: A total of 524 patients (age 52 years ±12, 84.4% male) were followed for 354 (interquartile range: 166-701) days. After multivariable adjustment, there were no differences in survival across the groups. In comparison to no device, only CRT-D was associated with late right ventricular failure (RVF) (hazard ratio 2.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-5.72, p = 0.003). There was no difference in risk of early RVF across the groups or risk of ICD shocks between those with ICD and CRT-D. CONCLUSION: In a multinational registry of patients with LVADs, there were no differences in survival with respect to CIED subtype. However, patients with a pre-existing CRT-D had a higher likelihood of late RVF suggesting significant long-term morbidity in those with devices capable of LV­lead pacing post LVAD implantation.

Outcome of patients on heart transplant list treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Insights from the TRans-Atlantic registry on VAd and TrAnsplant (TRAViATA).

BACKGROUND: Geographic variations in management and outcomes of individuals supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) between the United States (US) and Europe (EU) is largely unknown. METHODS: We created a retrospective, multinational registry of 524 patients who received a CF-LVAD (either HVAD or Heartmate II) between January 2008 and April 2017. Follow up spanned from date of CF-LVAD implant to post-HTx period with a median follow up of 44.8 months. RESULTS: The cohort included 299 (57.1%) EU and 225 (42.9%) US patients. Although the US cohort was significantly older with a higher prevalence of comorbidities, survival was similar between the cohorts (US 63.1%, EU 68.4% at 5 years, unadjusted log-rank test p = 0.43).Multivariate analyses suggested that older age, higher body mass index, elevated creatinine, use of temporary mechanical circulatory support prior CF-LVAD, and implantation of HVAD were associated with increased mortality. Among CF-LVAD patients undergoing HTx, the median time on CF-LVAD support was shorter in the US, meanwhile US donors were younger. Finally, the pattern of adverse events (stroke, gastrointestinal bleedings, late right ventricular failure, and driveline infection) during support differed significantly between US and EU. CONCLUSIONS: Although waitlisted patients in the US on CF-LVAD have higher risk comorbid conditions, the overall outcome is similar in US and EU. Geographic variations with regards to donor characteristics, duration of CF-LVAD support prior to transplant, and adverse events on support can explain the disparity in the utilization of mechanical bridge to transplant strategy between US and EU.