Obesity, Challenges, and Weight-Loss Strategies for Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices.

For adults with advanced heart failure, class II/III obesity (body mass index ≥35 kg/m2) represents major challenges, and it is even considered a contraindication for heart transplantation (HT) at many centers. This has led to growing interest in preventing and treating obesity to help patients with advanced heart failure become HT candidates. Among all weight-loss strategies, bariatric surgery (BSx) has the greatest weight loss efficacy and has shown value in enabling select patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and obesity to lose sufficient weight to access HT. Nevertheless, both BSx and antiobesity medications warrant caution in the LVAD population. In this review, the authors describe and interpret the available published reports on the impact of obesity and weight-loss strategies for patients with LVADs from general and HT candidacy standpoints. The authors also provide an overview of the journey of LVAD recipients who undergo BSx and review major aspects of perioperative protocols.

Controversies and Conundrums in Cardiac Cachexia: Key Questions About Wasting in Patients With HFrEF.

Cardiac cachexia is characterized by unintentional catabolic weight loss, decreased appetite, and inflammation and is common in patients with stage D (advanced) heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Cardiac cachexia and related muscle-wasting syndromes are markers of, and a consequence of, the heart failure (HF) syndrome. Although many potential modalities for identifying cardiac cachexia exist, the optimal definition, diagnostic tools, and treatment options for cardiac cachexia remain unclear. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether attempts to reverse muscle wasting prior to advanced HF surgeries, such as left ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation, can improve outcomes. It is important that HF clinicians and dietitians are aware of the pathophysiology and mechanisms of muscle-wasting syndromes in patients with HF, to aid in the recognition and risk stratification of advanced HFrEF. Although the opportunities and rationale for attempting to address cardiac cachexia prior to advanced HF surgeries are uncertain, recent publications suggest that control of the neurohumoral syndrome of advanced HF may be important to permit the recovery of skeletal muscle mass.

Sex-specific patterns of donor-derived cell-free DNA in heart transplant rejection: An analysis from the Genomic Research Alliance for Transplantation (GRAfT).

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive methods for surveillance of acute rejection are increasingly used in heart transplantation (HT), including donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA). As other cardiac biomarkers differ by sex, we hypothesized that there may be sex-specific differences in the performance of dd-cfDNA for the detection of acute rejection. The purpose of the current study was to examine patterns of dd-cfDNA seen in quiescence and acute rejection in male and female transplant recipients. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Genomic Research Alliance for Transplantation who were ≥18 years at the time of HT were included. Rejection was defined by endomyocardial biopsy with acute cellular rejection (ACR) grade ≥2R and/or antibody-mediated rejection ≥ pAMR 1. dd-cfDNA was quantitated using shotgun sequencing. Median dd-cfDNA levels were compared between sexes during quiescence and rejection. The performance of dd-cfDNA by sex was assessed using area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve. Allograft injury was defined as dd-cfDNA ≥0.25%. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one unique patients (49 female, 32%) were included in the analysis with 1,119 available dd-cfDNA measurements. Baseline characteristics including demographics and comorbidities were not significantly different between sexes. During quiescence, there were no significant sex differences in median dd-cfDNA level (0.04% [IQR 0.00, 0.16] in females vs 0.03% [IQR 0.00, 0.12] in males, p = 0.22). There were no significant sex differences in median dd-cfDNA for ACR (0.33% [0.21, 0.36] in females vs 0.32% [0.21, 1.10] in males, p = 0.57). Overall, median dd-cfDNA levels were higher in antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) than ACR but did not significantly differ by sex (0.50% [IQR 0.18, 0.82] in females vs 0.63% [IQR 0.32, 1.95] in males, p = 0.51). Elevated dd-cfDNA detected ACR/AMR with an AUROC of 0.83 in females and 0.89 in males, p-value for comparison = 0.16. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant sex differences in dd-cfDNA levels during quiescence and rejection. Performance characteristics were similar, suggesting similar diagnostic thresholds can be used in men and women for rejection surveillance.

The Cardiac Amyloidosis Registry Study (CARS): Rationale, Design and Methodology.

BACKGROUND: CARS (Cardiac Amyloidosis Registry Study) is a multicenter registry established in 2019 that includes patients with transthyretin (ATTR, wild-type and variant) and light chain (AL) cardiac amyloidosis (CA) evaluated at major amyloidosis centers between 1997 and 2025. CARS aims to describe the natural history of CA with attention to clinical and diagnostic variables at the time of diagnosis, real-world treatment patterns, and associated outcomes of patients in a diverse cohort that is more representative of the at-risk population than that described in CA clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: This article describes the design and methodology of CARS, including procedures for data collection and preliminary results. As of February 2023, 20 centers in the United States enrolled 1415 patients, including 1155 (82%) with ATTR and 260 (18%) with AL CA. Among those with ATTR, wild-type is the most common ATTR (71%), and most of the 305 patients with variant ATTR have the p.V142I mutation (68%). A quarter of the total population identifies as Black. More individuals with AL are female (39%) compared to those with ATTR (13%). CONCLUSIONS: CARS will answer crucial clinical questions about CA natural history and permit comparison of different therapeutics not possible through current clinical trials. Future international collaboration will further strengthen the validity of observations of this increasingly recognized condition.

Cardiac Cachexia in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients and the Implications of Weight Gain Early After Implantation.

Background Severe cardiac cachexia or malnutrition are commonly considered relative contraindications to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, but post-LVAD prognosis for patients with cachexia is uncertain. Methods and Results Intermacs (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) 2006 to 2017 was queried for the preimplantation variable cachexia/malnutrition. Cox proportional hazards modeling examined the relationship between cachexia and LVAD outcomes. Of 20 332 primary LVAD recipients with available data, 516 (2.54%) were reported to have baseline cachexia and had higher risk baseline characteristics. Cachexia was associated with higher mortality during LVAD support (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.36 [95% CI, 1.18-1.56]; P<0.0001), persisting after adjustment for baseline characteristics (adjusted HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.0-1.42]; P=0.005). Mean weight change at 12 months was +3.9±9.4 kg. Across the cohort, weight gain ≥5% during the first 3 months of LVAD support was associated with lower mortality (unadjusted HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; P=0.012; adjusted HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.97]; P=0.006). Conclusions The proportion of LVAD recipients recognized to have cachexia preimplantation was low at 2.5%. Recognized cachexia was independently associated with higher mortality during LVAD support. Early weight gain ≥5% was independently associated with lower mortality during subsequent LVAD support.

The End of Endomyocardial Biopsy?: A Practical Guide for Noninvasive Heart Transplant Rejection Surveillance.

Noninvasive heart transplant rejection surveillance using gene expression profiling (GEP) to monitor immune activation is widely used among heart transplant programs. With the new development of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) assays, more programs are transitioning to a predominantly noninvasive rejection surveillance protocol with a reduced frequency of endomyocardial biopsies. As a result, many practical questions arise that potentially delay implementation of these valuable new tools. The purpose of this review is to provide practical guidance for clinicians transitioning toward a less invasive acute rejection monitoring protocol after heart transplantation, and to answer 10 common questions about the GEP and dd-cfDNA assays. Evidence supporting GEP and dd-cfDNA testing is reviewed, as well as guidance on test interpretation and future directions.

Impella 5.5 Support Beyond 50 Days as Bridge to Heart Transplant in End-Stage Heart Failure Patients.

Prolonged mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for severe left ventricular dysfunction in cardiogenic shock as a bridge to heart transplantation (HTx) generally requires a surgical procedure. Typically, a surgically implanted temporary extracorporeal left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is chosen because of superior flow and durability compared with a percutaneously delivered endovascular LVAD (pVAD). However, compared with its predecessors, the Impella 5.5 trans-valvular pVAD provides higher hemodynamic support and features improved durability. Here, we present four successful cases with prolonged Impella 5.5 support as a bridge to HTx, with a mean support duration of 70 days (maximum 83 days). These cases highlight several potential benefits of Impella 5.5. The minimally invasive implantation procedure of the device reduces bleeding, decreases the postoperative recovery period, and enables early patient ambulation to reduce physical deconditioning before HTx surgery. Furthermore, Impella 5.5 adequately unloads the left ventricle and provides hemodynamic support to maintain end-organ function to further optimize hemodynamics before HTx. The evolution of Impella 5.5 technology may provide an alternative bridging strategy to traditional surgically implanted temporary MCS in select cases.

Association between postoperative hemodynamic metrics of pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular dysfunction and clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: While preoperative hemodynamic risk factors associated with early right heart failure (RHF) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) surgery are well-established, the relationship between postoperative hemodynamic status and subsequent outcomes remains poorly defined. METHODS: We analyzed adult CF-LVAD patients from the STS-INTERMACS registry surviving at least 3 months without evidence of early RHF and with hemodynamic data available at 3 months after LVAD implant. The association between metrics of RV afterload and function and the subsequent risk of death, right heart failure (RHF), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), or stroke were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Among 1,050 patients with available 3-month hemodynamics, pulmonary hypertension was common, with 585 (55.7%) having mPAP ≥ 20 mm Hg and 164 (15.6%) having PVR ≥ 3 WU. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPi, HR 0.62 per log-increase for values < 3, 95% CI 0.43-0.89) and PVR (HR 1.19 per 1 WU-increase for values > 1.5 WU, 95% CI 1.03-1.38) were independently associated with the composite of death or RHF. Postoperative RAP (HR 1.18 per 5 mm Hg increase, 95% CI 1.04-1.33), RAP:PCWP (HR 1.46 per log-increase, 95% CI 1.12-1.91), and PAPi (HR 0.76 per log-increase, 95% CI 0.61-0.95) were each associated with GIB risk. Postoperative hemodynamics was not associated with stroke risk. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamic metrics of postoperative RV dysfunction and elevated RV afterload are independently associated with RHF, mortality and GIB. Whether strategies targeting postoperative optimization of RV function and afterload can reduce the burden of these adverse events requires prospective study.

Indications, Complications, and Outcomes of Cardiac Surgery After Heart Transplantation: Results From the Cash Study.

Background: Allograft pathologies, such as valvular, coronary artery, or aortic disease, may occur early and late after cardiac transplantation. Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation (CASH) may be an option to improve quality of life and allograft function and prolong survival. Experience with CASH, however, has been limited to single-center reports. Methods: We performed a retrospective, multicenter study of heart transplant recipients with CASH between January 1984 and December 2020. In this study, 60 high-volume cardiac transplant centers were invited to participate. Results: Data were available from 19 centers in North America (n = 7), South America (n = 1), and Europe (n = 11), with a total of 110 patients. A median of 3 (IQR 2-8.5) operations was reported by each center; five centers included ≥ 10 patients. Indications for CASH were valvular disease (n = 62), coronary artery disease (CAD) (n = 16), constrictive pericarditis (n = 17), aortic pathology (n = 13), and myxoma (n = 2). The median age at CASH was 57.7 (47.8-63.1) years, with a median time from transplant to CASH of 4.4 (1-9.6) years. Reoperation within the first year after transplantation was performed in 24.5%. In-hospital mortality was 9.1% (n = 10). 1-year survival was 86.2% and median follow-up was 8.2 (3.8-14.6) years. The most frequent perioperative complications were acute kidney injury and bleeding revision in 18 and 9.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Cardiac surgery after heart transplantation has low in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in carefully selected patients. The incidence and type of CASH vary between international centers. Risk factors for the worse outcome are higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE II) and postoperative renal failure.

Skeletal Muscle Mass Recovery Early After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients With Advanced Systolic Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced systolic heart failure are at risk of unintentional weight loss and muscle wasting. It has been observed that left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients gain weight after device implantation, although it is unknown whether this represents skeletal muscle mass gains. We aimed to determine whether skeletal muscle mass increases early during LVAD support. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 30 adults with systolic heart failure ±21 days from LVAD implantation. Participants underwent whole-body dual X-ray absorptiometry to measure fat free mass, appendicular lean mass (ALM, lean mass in the arms and legs) and fat mass. Dual X-ray absorptiometry imaging was repeated at 3 and 6 months after LVAD implantation, with participation ending after the 6-month visit or heart transplantation, whichever occurred first. Changes in body composition were evaluated using mixed effects linear regression models. RESULTS: The cohort was 87% male, with mean age 56±12 (SD) years, and mean body mass index 26.4±5.4 kg/m2. Per sarcopenia ALM criteria, 52% of participants had muscle wasting at baseline. At baseline, mean fat free mass and ALM were 56.4±11.7 and 21.0±5.3 kg, respectively. Both measures increased significantly (P<0.001) over 6 months of LVAD support: mean fat free mass change at 3 and 6 months: 2.3 kg (95% CI, 1.0-3.5) and 4.2 kg (95% CI, 2.2-6.1); mean ALM change at 3 and 6 months: 1.5 kg (95% CI, 0.7-2.3) and 2.3 kg (95% CI, 0.9-3.6). CONCLUSIONS: Among LVAD recipients with advanced systolic heart failure and high baseline prevalence of muscle wasting, there were significant gains in skeletal muscle mass, as represented by dual X-ray absorptiometry fat free mass and ALM, over the first 6 months of LVAD support.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. STRUCTURE: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device Versus Intraaortic Balloon Pump as a Bridge to Transplant.

BACKGROUND: Heart transplantation (HTx) candidates supported by Impella (Abiomed, Danvers, MA) or intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), who demonstrate evidence of cardiogenic shock, may qualify for waitlist status 2 without exception under the new donor heart allocation system. However limited data comparing Impella versus IABP as a bridge to HTx exist. METHODS: The United Network for Organ Sharing database was queried for adults listed and/or transplanted between January 2014 and February 2020. Temporal trends regarding Impella and IABP use were analyzed using the Royston trend test and χ2 test. Waitlist mortality was examined using Fine-Gray competing risks analysis. Post-HTx 180-day survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Impella use increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 2.6% in 2020 (P < .01) and from 0.4% to 2.2% (P < .01) under the new allocation system. IABP use increased from 4.9% in 2014 to 27.6% in 2020 (P < .01) and from 6.7% to 26.6% (P < .01) under the new allocation system. Post-HTx survival was similar between groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.38-1.78) despite more preoperative ventilation (3.6% vs 1.1%, P = .01) and higher model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio scores (12.4 vs 9.5, P < .01) among Impella-supported recipients. Under the new system Impella-supported candidates were at higher risk of waitlist delisting compared with IABP-supported candidates (subhazard ratio, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.19-4.92). CONCLUSIONS: Post-HTx survival is comparable between Impella-supported and IABP-supported recipients despite worse preoperative profiles among Impella-supported recipients. Higher risk of waitlist delisting among Impella-supported candidates under the new allocation system requires close attention.

In-hospital outcomes after bariatric surgery in patients with heart failure.

Based on the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the United States, this study sought to evaluate real-world outcomes after bariatric surgery among patients with heart failure.

Nutrition, Obesity, and Cachexia in Patients With Heart Failure: A Consensus Statement from the Heart Failure Society of America Scientific Statements Committee.

Dietary guidance for patients with heart failure (HF) has traditionally focused on sodium and fluid intake restriction, but dietary quality is frequently poor in patients with HF and may contribute to morbidity and mortality. Restrictive diets can lead to inadequate intake of macronutrients and micronutrients by patients with HF, with the potential for deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, thiamine, vitamins D, E, and K, and folate. Although inadequate intake and low plasma levels of micronutrients have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes, evidence supporting therapeutic repletion is limited. Intravenous iron, thiamine, and coenzyme Q10 have the most clinical trial data for supplementation. There is also limited evidence supporting protein intake goals. Obesity is a risk factor for incident HF, and weight loss is an established approach for preventing HF, with a role for bariatric surgery in patients with severe obesity. However weight loss for patients with existing HF and obesity is a more controversial topic owing to an obesity survival paradox. Dietary interventions and pharmacologic weight loss therapies are understudied in HF populations. There are also limited data for optimal strategies to identify and address cachexia and sarcopenia in patients with HF, with at least 10%-20% of patients with ambulatory systolic HF developing clinically significant wasting. Gaps in our knowledge about nutrition status in patients with HF are outlined in this Statement, and strategies to address the most clinically relevant questions are proposed.

Has the Time Come to Be More Aggressive With Bariatric Surgery in Obese Patients With Chronic Systolic Heart Failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Obesity is a strong risk factor for the development of heart failure (HF). Diet, exercise, and weight-loss pharmacotherapies have limited potential to achieve significant and sustainable weight loss, especially in patients with symptomatic systolic HF. This review seeks to determine the role of bariatric surgery for patients with systolic HF and obesity. RECENT FINDINGS: Bariatric surgeries such as the laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) represent the most successful long-term strategy for achieving weight loss and diabetes and hypertension remission in the general obese population. These benefits translate to reductions in cardiovascular events and mortality, as well as improvements in myocardial structure and function. There is also now data supporting the safety of LSG or RYGB in patients with systolic dysfunction and a reduction in HF admissions post-operatively. Current literature and clinical experience suggest that the most appropriate bariatric surgery candidates with HF are patients aged < 50-60 years, with severely depressed systolic function and NYHA II-III symptoms, who have failed non-surgical strategies and have a high likelihood of future cardiac transplantation candidacy after weight loss. This review seeks to determine the role of bariatric surgery for patients with systolic HF and obesity.

Outcomes for Patients With Diabetes After Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for mortality among patients with heart failure as well as for patients who undergo cardiothoracic surgery. However it is unknown whether DM is associated with increased mortality or major complications during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) support. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed 300 consecutive adults who received CF-LVADs at a single center in the years 2006-2013; 129 patients had DM before LVAD, as defined by American Diabetes Association criteria (HbA1c ≥6.5% and/or taking DM medications). Compared with the non-DM group, DM patients were older, with a higher pre-LVAD body mass index, more ischemic heart failure etiology, and higher pre-LVAD creatinine. Ninety-three patients died on LVAD support, 43 with DM and 50 without DM (P = .4526). After control for 9 covariates in a Cox proportional hazards model, DM was unassociated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.883, 95% confidence interval 0.571-1.366; P = .5768). Diabetes was also unassociated with the adverse event end points of stroke/transient ischemic attack, intracerebral hemorrhage, pump thrombosis, and device-related infections. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is common in LVAD recipients (43% of the present cohort) but does not increase mortality or rates of major adverse events during CF-LVAD support.