Impact of Age of Heart Transplant Program on Patient Survival and Post-Transplant Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between age of a heart transplant (HT) program and outcomes has not been explored. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database of all adult HTs between 2009 and 2019. For each patient, we created a variable that corresponded to program age: new (<5), developing (≥5 but <10) and established (≥10) years. RESULTS: Of 20 997 HTs, 822 were at new, 908 at developing, and 19 267 at established programs. Patients at new programs were significantly more likely to have history of cigarette smoking, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and prior sternotomy. These programs were less likely to accept organs from older donors and those with a history of hypertension or cigarette use. As compared to patients at new programs, transplant patients at established programs had less frequent rates of treated rejection during the index hospitalization (HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.36-0.53] p < 0.001) and at 1 year (HR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.70], p < 0.001), less frequently required pacemaker implantations (HR 0.50 [95% CI, 0.36-0.69], p < 0.001), and less frequently required dialysis (HR 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53-0.82], p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in short- or long-term survival between the groups (log-rank p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: Patient and donor selection differed between new, developing, and established HT programs but had equivalent survival. New programs had increased likelihood of treated rejection, pacemaker implantation, and need for dialysis. Standardized post-transplant practices may help to minimize this variation and ensure optimal outcomes for all patients.

Long-term outcomes of heart transplantation in adults with congenital heart disease: The impact of single-ventricle versus biventricular physiology.

Objective: Congenital heart disease is a risk factor for mortality after orthotopic heart transplantation; however, the impact of preoperative circulation type and primary congenital heart disease diagnosis remains poorly delineated. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with adult congenital heart disease aged 16 years or more who underwent orthotopic heart transplantation at our institution between 2008 and 2022. Patients were categorized as having single-ventricle or biventricular circulation. The primary end point was 5-year post-transplant survival. Results: Sixty-one patients with adult congenital heart disease (single-ventricle: n = 26 [42.6%], biventricular: n = 35 [57.4%]) underwent orthotopic heart transplantation at 33.7 [interquartile range, 19.1-48.7] years. The most common congenital heart disease diagnosis was hypoplastic left heart syndrome (n = 11, 42.3%) in the single-ventricle group and congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (n = 7, 20.0%) in the biventricular group. Twenty-four patients previously underwent Fontan palliation. At transplant, patients in the single-ventricle group were younger (18.5 [interquartile range, 17.6-32.3] years vs 45.0 [interquartile range, 33.0-52.2] years, P < .001) and more likely to have biopsy-proven cirrhosis (46.2% vs 14.3%, P = .01) and protein-losing enteropathy (42.3% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Patients in the single-ventricle group also had longer bypass times (223.4 ± 65.3 minutes vs 187.4 ± 59.5 minutes, P = .03) and longer durations of mechanical ventilatory support (3.5 [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0] days vs 1.0 [interquartile range, 1.0-2.0] days, P < .001). Operative mortality was comparable (11.5% vs 8.6%, P = 1). Median follow-up was 6.0 [interquartile range, 2.4-10.0] years. Five-year survival was worse in the single-ventricle group (66.0% ± 10.0% vs 91.3% ± 4.8%, P = .03), as was freedom from major rejection (58.3% ± 10.2% vs 84.0% ± 6.6%, P = .02). In univariable analysis, hypoplastic left heart syndrome and Fontan circulation were risk factors for post-transplant mortality (hypoplastic left heart syndrome: hazard ratio, 5.0, P < .001; Fontan: hazard ratio, 3.5, P = .03). Conclusions: Adult patients with congenital heart disease undergoing heart transplant with single-ventricle physiology experienced a more complicated post-transplant course, with worse long-term survival and freedom from rejection. Multicenter studies are required to guide orthotopic heart transplantation decision-making in this complex cohort.

Validation of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score in a large left ventricular assist device center.

OBJECTIVE: The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was recently validated in the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 to predict patient-specific survival in HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device candidates. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score stratifies individuals into tertiles according to survival probability. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device recipients between September 2017 and August 2022. Baseline characteristics were collected from the electronic medical records. HeartMate 3 survival risk scores were calculated for all eligible patients. One- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were conducted. A univariate and multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify predictors. RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were included in this final analysis. The median age was 62 years, 83% were male, and 26% were Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1. The mean HeartMate 3 survival risk score for the entire cohort was 2.66 ± 0.66. Two-year survivals in the high, average, and low survival groups were 93.5% ± 3.2%, 81.6% ± 7.4%, and 82.0% ± 6.6%, respectively. As a continuous variable, the unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.08-4.45; P = .029). The areas under the curve were 0.70 and 0.66 at 1 and 2 years, respectively. We were unable to demonstrate the discriminatory ability of the HeartMate 3 survival risk score using the original stratification, but we found significantly increased survival in the high survival group using a binary cutoff (hazard ratio, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.01-20.9; P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: The unadjusted HeartMate 3 survival risk score was associated with postimplant survival in patients outside of the Multicenter study Of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 but did not remain an independent predictor after adjusting for ischemic etiology and severe diabetes. The HeartMate 3 survival risk score was able to identify patients at high survival using a binary cutoff, but we were unable to demonstrate its discriminatory ability among the previously published risk tertiles.

Medium-Term Outcomes of Concomitant Aortic Valve Repair in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to analyze the development of aortic insufficiency in patients who received central aortic valve repair when undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent HeartMate II or 3 (Abbott Lab) implantation between 2004 and 2022. Ninety-four patients were excluded from analysis for history of aortic valve procedures, a bicuspid aortic valve, baseline trace aortic insufficiency, or other concomitant aortic valve procedure. Patients who had ≥ mild aortic insufficiency had concomitant aortic valve repair. Clinical characteristics, serial echocardiograms, and outcomes were determined. RESULTS: Of the 656 patients who underwent HeartMate II or 3 implantation, 105 patients (59 HeartMate II and 46 HeartMate 3) met study criteria. Median age was 68 years [60-74 years], 91.4% [n=96] were male, 54.4% [n=56] were white, and 68.6% [n=72] received support as destination therapy. Preoperative aortic insufficiency degree was 54.3% (n=57) mild, 23.8% (n=25) mild-to-moderate, 20.0% (n=21) moderate, 1.0% (n=1) moderate-to-severe, 1.0% (n=1) severe. In hospital mortality was 5.7% [n=6]. Freedom from ≥ moderate aortic insufficiency was 96.4% (95%CI: 92.5%-100%), 93.3% (95%CI: 87.6%-99.2%), and 91.0% (95%CI: 84.1%-98.5%) at 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year post-implantation, respectively. One HeartMate II patient experienced severe aortic insufficiency and was treated with a heart transplant. Three-year survival was 63.4% [95%CI: 52.9%-75.9%]. CONCLUSIONS: Central aortic valve repair may be an effective technique to mitigate aortic insufficiency in HeartMate II and 3. A larger cohort study with longer duration of follow up is warranted to further investigate the clinical impact.

Ventricular assist device using a thoracotomy-based implant technique: Multi-Center Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy (HM3 SWIFT).

OBJECTIVES: The HeartMate 3 (Abbott) left ventricular assist device provides substantial improvement in long-term morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced heart failure. The Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study compares thoracotomy-based implantation clinical outcomes with standard median sternotomy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study in patients eligible for HeartMate 3 implantation with thoracotomy-based surgical technique (bilateral thoracotomy or partial upper sternotomy with left thoracotomy). The composite primary end point was survival free of disabling stroke (modified Rankin score >3), or reoperation to remove or replace a malfunctioning device, or conversion to median sternotomy at 6-months postimplant (elective transplants were treated as a success). The primary end point (noninferiority, -15% margin) was assessed with >90% power compared with a propensity score-matched cohort (ratio 1:2) derived from the Multi-Center Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 continued access protocol. RESULTS: The study enrolled 102 patients between December 2020 and July 2022 in the thoracotomy-based arm at 23 North American centers. Follow-up concluded in December 2022. In the Implantation of the HeartMate 3 in Subjects With Heart Failure Using Surgical Techniques Other Than Full Median Sternotomy study group, noninferiority criteria was met (absolute between-group difference, -1.2%; Farrington Manning lower 1-sided 95% CI, -9.3%; P < .0025) and event-free survival was not different (85.0% vs 86.2%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.58-2.10). Length of stay with thoracotomy-based implant was longer (median, 20 vs 17 days; P = .03). No differences were observed for blood product utilization, adverse events (including right heart failure), functional status, and quality of life between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracotomy-based implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device is noninferior to implantation via standard full sternotomy. This study supports thoracotomy-based implantation as an additional standard for surgical implantation of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device.

Comparing 3-year survival and readmissions between HeartMate 3 and heart transplant as primary treatment for advanced heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 3-year survival and readmissions of patients who received the HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or underwent orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) as primary treatment for advanced heart failure. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 381 adult patients who received an HM3 LVAD or were listed for OHT between January 2014 and March 2021 at our center. To minimize crossover bias, OHT recipients with a prior LVAD were excluded, and HM3 patients were censored at the time of transplant. Cohorts were propensity score-matched to reduce confounding variables. The primary outcome was 3-year survival, and the secondary outcome was mean cumulative all-cause unplanned readmission. RESULTS: The study population comprised 185 HM3 patients (49%) and 196 OHT patients (51%), with 104 propensity score-matched patients in each group. After propensity score matching, there was no statistical difference in 3-year survival (83.7% for HM3 vs 87.0% for OHT; P = .91; relative risk [RR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-2.20). In the unmatched cohorts, patients age 18 to 49 years had comparable survival with HM3 and OHT (96.9% vs 95.9%; N = 91; P = 1.00; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.09-9.78). Patients age 50+ years had slightly inferior survival with HM3 (75.0% vs 83.9%; N = 290; P = .60; RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.85-2.68). The mean number of readmissions at 3 years was higher in the HM3 group (3.89 vs 2.05; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory analysis suggests that for similar patients, HM3 may provide comparable 3-year survival to OHT as a primary treatment for heart failure but may result in more readmissions.

Does lateral approach preserve the right ventricular function after HeartMate 3 insertion?

OBJECTIVES: Lateral thoracotomy (LT) approach may preserve the right ventricular (RV) function after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. This study evaluated the short- and long-term RV function using echocardiography after LVAD implantation via LT or median sternotomy (sternotomy). METHODS: The patients who underwent HeartMate 3 implantation were retrospectively reviewed. The RV function was assessed before and 1 month and 1 year after LVAD implantation. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and a composite of death or readmission due to RV failure, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 195 patients, 55 (28%) underwent LT and 140 (72%) underwent sternotomy. There were no significant differences in the preoperative RV geometry or function. One month after the LVAD implantation, the LT group had a smaller RV end-diastolic dimension [42 (29-48) vs 47 (42-52) mm; P = 0.003] and RV end-diastolic area [25 (21-28) vs 29 (24-36) cm2; P < 0.001] and a greater RV fractional area change [30 (25-34)% vs 28 (23-31)%; P = 0.04] and peak systolic tissue velocity [8 (7-9) vs 7 (6-8) cm/s; P = 0.01]. Twenty-four patients died and 46 met the composite end point. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis did not reveal significant differences between LT and sternotomy in the 2-year survival (93% vs 83%; log-rank test, P = 0.28) and adverse event rate (76% vs 71%; log-rank test, P = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: LT approach yielded a better-preserved RV function at 1 month; however, there were no significant differences in the 2-year survival and adverse event rates.

Predictors of 5-Year Mortality in Patients Managed With a Magnetically Levitated Left Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: In advanced heart failure patients implanted with a fully magnetically levitated HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott) left ventricular assist device (LVAD), it is unknown how preimplant factors and postimplant index hospitalization events influence 5-year mortality in those able to be discharged. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to identify risk predictors of mortality through 5 years among HM3 LVAD recipients conditional on discharge from index hospitalization in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial. METHODS: This analysis evaluated 485 of 515 (94%) patients discharged after implantation of the HM3 LVAD. Preimplant (baseline), implant surgery, and index hospitalization characteristics were analyzed individually, and as multivariable predictors for mortality risk through 5 years. RESULTS: Cumulative 5-year mortality in the cohort (median age: 62 years, 80% male, 65% White, 61% destination therapy due to transplant ineligibility) was 38%. Two preimplant characteristics (elevated blood urea nitrogen and prior coronary artery bypass graft or valve procedure) and 3 postimplant characteristics (hemocompatibility-related adverse events, ventricular arrhythmias, and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 at discharge) were predictors of 5-year mortality. In 171 of 485 patients (35.3%) without any risk predictors, 5-year mortality was reduced to 22.6% (95% CI: 15.4%-32.7%). Even among those with 1 or more predictors, mortality was <50% at 5 years (45.7% [95% CI: 39.0%-52.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival in successfully discharged HM3 LVAD recipients is largely influenced by clinical events experienced during the index surgical hospitalization in tandem with baseline factors, with mortality of <50% at 5 years. In patients without identified predictors of risk, long-term 5-year mortality is low and rivals that achieved with heart transplantation, even though most were implanted with destination therapy intent. (MOMENTUM 3 IDE Clinical Study Protocol, NCT02224755; MOMENTUM 3 Pivotal Cohort Extended Follow-up PAS, NCT03982979).

Preoperative left ventricular diastolic dimension index is associated with outcomes after HeartMate 3 implantation.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the association between indexed left ventricular diastolic dimension and clinical outcomes after HeartMate 3 implantation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients implanted with the HeartMate 3 at our centre between November 2014 and September 2021. Left ventricular diastolic dimension was assessed via preoperative transthoracic echocardiography and left ventricular diastolic dimension index was calculated as left ventricular diastolic dimension/body surface area. The primary outcome was a composite of death or readmission due to right heart failure or stroke. The cut-off left ventricular diastolic dimension index value most closely associated with outcomes was determined by receiver-operating characteristic curve and restricted cubic spline analyses. RESULTS: Left ventricular diastolic dimension index measurements were available for 252 of 253 (99.6%) patients. Using a left ventricular diastolic dimension index cut-off value of 33.5 mm/m2, the cohort was divided: left ventricular diastolic dimension index ≤ (n = 131) or > (n = 121) 33.5 mm/m2. While there were no significant differences in age, INTERMACS level and preoperative haemodynamics between groups, patients with smaller left ventricular diastolic dimension index were more likely to have a larger body surface area (2.1 vs 1.9 m2, P < 0.001), ischaemic cardiomyopathy [64 (49%) vs 40 (33%), P = 0.01] and smaller left atrium volume index [40.5 (32.3-54.0) ml/m2 vs 54.0 (43.0-66.8) ml/m2, P < 0.001]. Smaller left ventricular diastolic dimension index patients had significantly worse survival (74% vs 88%, log-rank P = 0.009) and freedom from adverse events (55% vs 73%, log-rank P = 0.005) at 3-year follow-up. Smaller left ventricular diastolic dimension index was independently associated with the composite outcome (Hazard ratio 2.24, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Smaller preoperative left ventricular diastolic dimension index is associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing HeartMate 3 implantation.

Primary Cardiac Schwannoma: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Case Reports.

Primary cardiac schwannoma (PCS) is a neurogenic tumor that arises from Schwann cells. Malignant schwannoma (MSh) is an aggressive cancer comprising 2% of all sarcomas. Information on the proper management of these tumors is limited. Four databases were searched for case reports/series of PCS. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included therapeutic strategies and the corresponding outcomes. Among 439 potentially eligible studies, 53 met the inclusion criteria. The patients included had 43.72 ± 17.76 years and 28.3% were males. Over 50% of patients had MSh, with 9.4% also demonstrating metastases. Schwannoma commonly occurs in the atria (66.0%). Left-sided PCS were more common than right-sided ones. Surgery was performed in almost 90% of the cases; chemotherapy and radiotherapy were used in 16.9% and 15.1% of cases, respectively. Compared to benign cases, MSh occurs at a younger age and is commonly located on the left side. OS of the entire cohort at 1 and 3 years were 60.7%, and 54.0%, respectively. Females and males OS were similar up to 2 years follow-up. Surgery was associated with higher OS (p < 0.01). Surgery is the primary treatment option for both benign and malignant cases and was the only factor associated with a relative improvement in survival.

Concurrent valvular procedures during left ventricular assist device implantation and outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 trial portfolio.

BACKGROUND: Correction of valvular disease is often undertaken during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with uncertain benefit. We analyzed clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott) LVAD implantation in those with various concurrent valve procedures (HM3+VP) with those with an isolated LVAD implant (HM3 alone). METHODS: The study included 2200 patients with HM3 implanted within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial portfolio who underwent 820 concurrent procedures among which 466 (21.8%) were HM3+VP. VPs included 101 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid; 85 patients had multiple VPs. Perioperative complications, major adverse events, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients who underwent HM3+VP had higher-acuity Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (1-2: 41% vs 31%) compared with no VPs (P < .05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124 vs 76 minutes; P < .0001) and hospital length of stay (20 vs 18 days; P < .0001) were longer in HM3+VP. A higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs 23.8%), and right heart failure (41.5% vs 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP at 0 to 30 days (P < .01), with no difference in 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%) or 2-year survival (81.7% vs 80.8%). Analysis of individual VP showed no differences in survival compared to HM3 alone. No differences were noted among patients with either significant mitral (moderate or worse) or tricuspid (moderate or worse) regurgitation with or without corrective surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent VPs, commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, with no effect on short- and long-term survival. There is sufficient equipoise to consider a randomized trial on the benefit of commonly performed VPs (such as mitral or tricuspid regurgitation correction), during LVAD implantation.

Outflow Graft Narrowing of the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device.

BACKGROUND: In patients with the HeartMate 3 (HM3, Abbott) left ventricular (LV) assist device (LVAD), outflow graft narrowing has been reported as a result of accumulation of biodebris either internal or external to the graft. This study describes the prevalence, imaging findings, and clinical outcomes associated with HM3 LVAD outflow graft narrowing. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was performed in patients who received an HM3 LVAD between November 2014 and July 2019. All patients with a computed tomographic (CT) angiogram or a CT scan with intravenous contrast sufficient to evaluate the outflow graft lumen were included. Narrowing was defined as a hypodensity of ≥3 mm. RESULTS: Of 165 HM3 LVAD recipients, 46 (28%) had qualifying imaging. Outflow graft narrowing was present in 33% (15/46). One patient had complete obstruction requiring emergency surgery, whereas 14 patients had a median hypodensity of 4.5 mm (interquartile range, 3.3-5.8 mm). The presence of outflow graft narrowing was significantly associated with a longer duration of LVAD support (588.2 ± 277.5 days vs 131.5 ± 170.9 days; P < .0001). One-year survival after identification of narrowing was 93%, with death occurring in 1 patient with complete obstruction. LV unloading (mean percent decrease in LV end-diastolic diameter at time of CT imaging vs pre-LVAD) was 16.7% vs 17.7% in patients with and without narrowing, respectively (P = .86). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with adequate imaging, one-third have evidence of narrowing. Outflow graft narrowing secondary to biodebris was more likely to be found in HM3 LVAD recipients with longer duration of LVAD support. There was no significant difference in LV unloading between patients with and without narrowing.

National outcomes of bridge to multiorgan cardiac transplantation using mechanical circulatory support.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the profile of patients with multiorgan failure listed for simultaneous cardiac transplantation and secondary organ. In addition, few studies have reported how these patients are bridged with mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In this study, we examined national data of patients listed for multiorgan transplantation and their outcomes after bridging with or without MCS. METHODS: United Network for Organ Sharing data were reviewed for adult multiorgan transplantations from 1986 to 2019. Post-transplant patients and total waitlist listings were examined and stratified according to MCS status. Survival was assessed via Cox regression in the post-transplant cohort and Fine-Gray competing risk regression with transplantation as a competing risk in the waitlist cohort. RESULTS: There were 4534 waitlist patients for multiorgan transplant during the study period, of whom 2117 received multiorgan transplants. There was no significant difference in post-transplant survival between the MCS types and those without MCS in the whole cohort and heart-kidney subgroup. Fine-Gray competing risk regression showed that patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation had significantly greater waitlist mortality compared with those without MCS when controlling for preoperative characteristics (subdistribution hazard ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-3.47; P < .001), whereas those bridged with a ventricular assist device had a decreased incidence of death compared with those without MCS (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.96; P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: MCS, as currently applied, does not appear to compromise the survival of multiorgan heart transplant patients. Waitlist data show that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients have profoundly worse survival irrespective of preoperative factors including organ type listed. Survival on the waitlist for multiorgan transplant has improved across device eras.

Outcomes of treatment for deep left ventricular assist device infection.

OBJECTIVE: Among left ventricular assist device patients, the most commonly infected component is the drive line, which can be managed with antibiotics and local debridement. Infection of intrathoracic device components is less common but more difficult to manage. Herein we describe the incidence of deep device infection (DDI) at our center as well as management and outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 658 patients who underwent implantable left ventricular assist device insertion with HeartMate 2 (Abbott) or HeartMate 3 (Abbott) devices between January 2004 and June 2021. DDI was defined according to radiographic and clinical criteria. Cumulative incidence was calculated using a Fine-Gray subdistribution model; survival analysis was performed using the method of Kaplan and Meier. RESULTS: There were 32 (4.8%) DDIs during this study period. Drive line infection and re-exploration for bleeding were associated with development of DDI. Cumulative incidence of DDI increased over time, affecting 11% (7%-18%) at 5 years. The dominant microbes involved in DDI were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (19%) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (13%). Nineteen patients (59%) with device infection underwent device exchange, 6 (19%) underwent initial transplant, and 7 (22%) were treated solely with debridement and antibiotics. Of those who underwent device exchange, 12 (63%) developed reinfection of their new device and 6 underwent subsequent heart transplant. Patients who underwent transplantation for management of device infection had improved 5-year survival (80% vs 11%; P = .01) but 3 patients (25%) developed deep sternal wound infection after transplant. CONCLUSIONS: DDI is a rare but challenging complication in this destination era. Heart transplantation is the preferred management strategy for eligible patients but infectious complication is common.

Less is better? Comparing effects of median sternotomy and thoracotomy surgical approaches for left ventricular assist device implantation on postoperative outcomes and valvulopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation performed via median sternotomy or lateral thoracotomy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 222 adult patients with the HeartMate3 (Abbott Lab) left ventricular assist device implanted between November 2014 and November 2021. Outcomes stratified by surgical approach were evaluated in propensity score-matched groups. The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital morbidity and mortality, readmissions, and significant valvular regurgitation. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 60 patients (27%) who underwent lateral thoracotomy and 162 patients (73%) who underwent median sternotomy. Propensity score matching compared 45 patients who underwent lateral thoracotomy with 68 patients who underwent median sternotomy. There were no differences in intensive care unit or hospital stay duration (median, 10 vs 11 days, P = .58; 46 vs 40 days, P = .279), time to extubation (median, 2 days, P = .627), vasoactive-inotropic scores at intensive care unit arrival (18.20 vs 16.60, P = .654), or in-hospital mortality (2 [5%] vs 4 [6.1%] patients, P = 1). One-year survival (95.56% vs 90.61%, P = .48) and all-cause hospital readmission rate (Gray's test: P = .532) were also comparable. Patients who underwent lateral thoracotomy had significantly less early right ventricular failure (24.4% vs 53.7%, P = .004), although they had more follow-up tricuspid regurgitation (17.6% vs 0%, P = .030) and volume overload readmissions (Gray's test: P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that lateral thoracotomy is a safe although not necessarily superior alternative to median sternotomy for HeartMate 3 implantation in the perioperative and postoperative periods, because it precludes concomitant tricuspid valve repairs and may be associated with increased risk of late tricuspid regurgitation and volume overload readmissions.

The difference between cystatin C- and creatinine-based assessment of kidney function in acute heart failure.

AIMS: Acute heart failure (HF) is associated with muscle mass loss, potentially leading to overestimation of kidney function using serum creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRsCr ). Cystatin C-based eGFR (eGFRCysC ) is less muscle mass dependent. Changes in the difference between eGFRCysC and eGFRsCr may reflect muscle mass loss. We investigated the difference between eGFRCysC and eGFRsCr and its association with clinical outcomes in acute HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A post hoc analysis was performed in 841 patients enrolled in three trials: Diuretic Optimization Strategy Evaluation (DOSE), Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation (ROSE), and Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure (CARRESS-HF). Intra-individual differences between eGFRs (eGFRdiff ) were calculated as eGFRCysC -eGFRsCr at serial time points during HF admission. We investigated associations of (i) change in eGFRdiff between baseline and day 3 or 4 with readmission-free survival up to day 60; (ii) index hospitalization length of stay (LOS) and readmission with eGFRdiff at day 60. eGFRCysC reclassified 40% of samples to more advanced kidney dysfunction. Median eGFRdiff was -4 [-11 to 1.5] mL/min/1.73 m2 at baseline, became more negative during admission and remained significantly different at day 60. The change in eGFRdiff between baseline and day 3 or 4 was associated with readmission-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio per standard deviation decrease in eGFRdiff : 1.14, P = 0.035). Longer index hospitalization LOS and readmission were associated with more negative eGFRdiff at day 60 (both P ≤ 0.026 in adjusted models). CONCLUSIONS: In acute HF, a marked difference between eGFRCysC and eGFRsCr is present at baseline, becomes more pronounced during hospitalization, and is sustained at 60 day follow-up. The change in eGFRdiff during HF admission and eGFRdiff at day 60 are associated with clinical outcomes.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure.

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70-75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

Outcomes in Smaller Body Size Adults After HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes in patients with smaller body size after HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (HM3) implantation are not well characterized. We sought to evaluate outcomes in smaller vs larger body surface area (BSA) patients in the MOMENTUM 3 pivotal trial and its Continued Access Protocol cohort. METHODS: The analysis cohort included 1015 HM3 patients divided into 2 groups: BSA ≤1.70 m2 (small patients, n = 82) and BSA >1.70 m2 (large patients, n = 933). The composite primary end point was survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or to remove a malfunctioning device. Adverse events were compared between groups. RESULTS: Smaller patients were more frequently women (56.1% vs 17.7%; P < .001) and had lower prevalence of diabetes (28.1% vs 43.9%; P = .005) and hypertension (51.2% vs 71.9%; P < .001), larger median indexed LVEDD (normalized by BSA, 40 vs 33 mm/m2; P < .001), and lower median serum creatinine concentration (1.1 vs 1.3 mg/dL; P < .001). The proportion of patients achieving the composite end point at 2 years was 77% in both groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.68-1.91; P = .62). Two-year adverse event rates were also similar between groups except for sepsis (6.1% vs 14.9%; P = .029) and cardiac arrhythmias (24.4% vs 35.3%; P = .005), which were higher in the larger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after HM3 implantation were comparable between small and large patients. Smaller body size should not be used to deny HM3 implantation in patients who are otherwise suitable candidates for durable mechanical circulatory support.