Carotid artery structure and hemodynamics and their association with adverse vascular events in left ventricular assist device patients.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are associated with major vascular complications including stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). These adverse vascular events may be the result of widespread vascular dysfunction resulting from pre-LVAD abnormalities or continuous flow during LVAD therapy. We hypothesized that pre-existing large artery atherosclerosis and/or abnormal blood flow as measured in carotid arteries using ultrasonography are associated with a post-implantation composite adverse outcome including stroke, GIB, or death. We retrospectively studied 141 adult HeartMate II patients who had carotid ultrasound duplex exams performed before and/or after LVAD surgery. Structural parameters examined included plaque burden and stenosis. Hemodynamic parameters included peak-systolic, end-diastolic, and mean velocity as well as pulsatility index. We examined the association of these measures with the composite outcome as well as individual subcomponents such as stroke. After adjusting for established risk factors, the composite adverse outcome was associated with pre-operative moderate-to-severe carotid plaque (OR 5.08, 95% CI 1.67-15.52) as well as pre-operative internal carotid artery stenosis (OR 9.02, 95% CI 1.06-76.56). In contrast, altered hemodynamics during LVAD support were not associated with the composite outcome. Our findings suggest that pre-existing atherosclerosis possibly in combination with LVAD hemodynamics may be an important contributor to adverse vascular events during mechanical support. This encourages greater awareness of carotid morphology pre-operatively and further study of the interaction between hemodynamics, pulsatility, and structural arterial disease during LVAD support.

Effect of Ventricular Arrhythmia Ablation in Patients With Heart Mate II Left Ventricular Assist Devices: An Evaluation of Ablation Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced heart failure (HF) are predisposed to ventricular arrhythmias (VAs), particularly following implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). There is minimal evidence for appropriate management strategies. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the burden of VA and response to ablation performed either before or following LVAD implantation. METHODS: We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent both VA ablation and Heart Mate II (Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA, USA) LVAD implantation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA). Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent VA ablation before (pre-LVAD) or after LVAD (post-LVAD) implantation. Descriptive analyses assessed 6-month arrhythmia burden in relation to LVAD implantation and VA ablation. RESULTS: A total of 9 patients underwent both LVAD implantation and VA ablation. There were 3 and 6 patients, respectively, in the pre-LVAD and post-LVAD cohorts. Among patients in the pre-LVAD cohort, the median number of VAs tended to increase after ablation (9 vs. 72) and decreased after LVAD implantation (72 vs. 63). Similarly among patients in the post-LVAD cohort, the median burden of VAs increased after LVAD implantation (1 vs. 22) and the median burden decreased after ablation (22 vs. 13). Two of 6 patients had substrate related to the LVAD inflow cannula site, while other substrate was not related directly to the cannula. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with progressive HF and LVAD implantation, ablation is associated with reduced VA rates. In LVAD patients, most VAs arise from substrate unrelated to the inflow cannula site.

The impact of Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor antibodies on morbidity and mortality in Heart Mate II supported recipients.

AIMS: One of the proposed limitations of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy is high degree of sensitization. Apart from human leukocyte antigen (HLA), antibodies against Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor (AT1R) have been associated with adverse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare complications and survival of anti - AT1R positive versus negative Heart Mate II (HMII) recipients. METHODS: Altogether 96 patients received HMII at our institution between 2008 and 2012. These were stratified into three groups: antibody positive before implantation (AT1R+), antibody conversion during support (AT1R-/+) and patients who remained antibody negative (AT1R-). Survival, major on-device adverse events and post-transplant rejections were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests. RESULTS: Two year on-device and overall survival was 78 ± 12% and 75 ± 10% in AT1R-, 60 ± 23% and 60 ± 15% in AT1R+ and 92 ± 6% and 87 ± 5% in AT1R-/+ group (P = 0.409, P = 0.185). Freedom from major adverse event at two years for AT1R-, AT1R+ and AT1R-/+ was 49 ± 14%, 53 ± 16% and 41 ± 11% (P = 0.875). Freedom from rejection was 63 ± 17% in patients who were both anti-AT1R and HLA negative and 65 ± 13% in those who were antibody positive (P = 0.788). CONCLUSION: Patients who were anti-AT1R antibody positive had similar on-device survival and rate of complications in comparison to those who were antibody negative. In transplanted patients, there were no differences in the overall survival and rejection between the groups.