Clinical Recommendations for Improving Palliative Nursing Care for Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device.

Nurses who care for patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) are highly skilled clinicians who manage unique technological demands and complex complications within this specialized patient population. There is a demonstrated need and benefit for palliative care for patients with a LVAD, yet palliative consults are often underused, and the quality of consultation for these patients is poorly understood. Rarely, if at all, do nurses receive formal training on how to navigate the palliative care needs of patients with a LVAD, which includes preparedness planning, caregiver support, device/body image acceptance, and end-of-life care. In addition, there is a need for literature to address specifically how nurses in their role and scope of practice can improve palliative care for patients with a LVAD. The purpose of this article was to present recommendations to equip palliative care nurses to best serve the needs of patients with a LVAD, wherein they can partner with and advance their colleagues in cardiology to improve their delivery of primary palliative care.

Reverse Remodeling With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the past 25+ years of research into the development of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) to improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe end-stage heart failure and basic insights gained into the biology of heart failure gleaned from studies of hearts and myocardium of patients undergoing LVAD support. Clinical aspects of contemporary LVAD therapy, including evolving device technology, overall mortality, and complications, are reviewed. We explain the hemodynamic effects of LVAD support and how these lead to ventricular unloading. This includes a detailed review of the structural, cellular, and molecular aspects of LVAD-associated reverse remodeling. Synergisms between LVAD support and medical therapies for heart failure related to reverse remodeling, remission, and recovery are discussed within the context of both clinical outcomes and fundamental effects on myocardial biology. The incidence, clinical implications and factors most likely to be associated with improved ventricular function and remission of the heart failure are reviewed. Finally, we discuss recognized impediments to achieving myocardial recovery in the vast majority of LVAD-supported hearts and their implications for future research aimed at improving the overall rates of recovery.

Heart transplant outcomes in patients with mechanical circulatory support: cold storage versus normothermic perfusion organ preservation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with mechanical circulatory support bridged to a heart transplant (HTx) are at higher risk of postoperative graft dysfunction. In this subset, a mode of graft preservation that shortens graft ischaemia should be beneficial. METHODS: The outcomes of 38 patients on mechanical circulatory support (extracorporeal life support, left ventricular assist device and biventricular assist device) who received a HTx between 2015 and 2020 were analysed according to the method of graft preservation: cold storage (CS) group, 24 (63%) or ex vivo perfusion (EVP) group, 14 (37%). RESULTS: The median age was 57 (range 30-73) vs 64 (35-75) years (P = 0.10); 88% were men (P = 0.28); extracorporeal life support was more frequent in the CS group (54% vs 36%; P = 0.27) versus left ventricular and biventricular assist devices in the EVP group (46% vs 64%; P = 0.27). Clamping time was shorter in the EVP group (P < 0.001) and ischaemic time >4 h was higher in the CS group (P = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 13% (0-27%) in the CS group and 0% (P = 0.28) in the EVP group. A significantly lower primary graft failure [7% (0-23%) vs 42% (20-63%); P = 0.03] was observed in the EVP group. Survival at 1 year was 79 ± 8% (63-95%) in the CS group and 84 ± 10% (64-104%) in the EVP group (P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use of ex vivo graft perfusion in patients on mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to a HTx. This technique, by shortening graft ischaemic time, seems to improve post-HTx outcomes.

Waitlist and Post-Heart Transplant Outcomes for Children With Nondilated Cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: Although outcomes for pediatric cardiomyopathy (CMP) patients have improved, an understanding of outcomes by CMP phenotype is essential. This study assessed changes in waitlist and post-transplant survival in nondilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients over 2 decades, explored ventricular assist device (VAD) utilization in this cohort, and identified risk factors for waitlist and posttransplant mortality in the current era. METHODS: Pediatric patients with a diagnosis of CMP listed for heart transplantation during three eras: Era 1: March 5, 1999 to December 31, 2004; Era 2: January 1, 2005 to December 15, 2011; and Era 3 (current era): December 16, 2011 to February 28, 2018 were included. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess waitlist and posttransplant survival. RESULTS: Compared with patients with DCM, those with hypertrophic and restrictive cardiomyopathy in the current era are less likely to be on VAD (23.4% vs 2.7% vs 4.5%); listed United Network for Organ Sharing Status 1A (75.6% vs 39.8% vs 34.8%), and more likely to have longer waitlist times (P < .01 for all). Only 3.3% hypertrophic and 2.4% restrictive cardiomyopathy patients had VAD implantation, although VAD use did not adversely impact waitlist survival in weighted non-DCM patients. Significant improvements have occurred in waitlist survival of hypertrophic and posttransplant survival of both types of non-DCM patients. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, waitlist and posttransplant survival is similar for all CMP phenotypes. VAD use is low in patients with non-DCM, although this did not increase waitlist mortality in adjusted analysis. Further studies in patients with non-DCM are needed to determine optimal timing and anatomic characteristics most likely to benefit from VAD implantation during the waitlist period.

Trends, Perioperative Adverse Events, and Survival of Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

Importance: Information regarding the performance and outcomes of noncardiac surgery (NCS) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is scarce, with limited longitudinal follow-up data that are mostly limited to single-center reports. Objective: To examine the trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with NCS among patients with LVAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined patients enrolled in Medicare undergoing durable LVAD implantation from January 2012 to November 2017 with follow-up through December 2017. The study included all Medicare Provider and Analysis Review Part A files for the years 2012 to 2017. Patients identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes for new LVAD implantation were included. Data analysis was performed from November 2019 to February 2020. Exposures: NCS procedures were identified using the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 procedural codes and divided into elective and urgent or emergent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), defined as in-hospital or 30-day all-cause mortality, ischemic stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage after NCS. Early (<60 days after NCS) and late (≥60 days after NCS) mortality after NCS were analyzed in both subgroups using time-varying covariate and landmark analysis using patients who did not undergo NCS as reference. Results: Of the 8118 patients with LVAD (mean [SD] age, 63.4 [10.8] years; 6484 men [79.9%]), 1326 (16.3%, or approximately 1 in 6) underwent NCS, of which 1000 procedures (75.4%) were emergent or urgent and 326 (24.6%) were elective. There was no difference in age between patients who underwent NCS and patients who did not (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [10.6] vs 63.4 [10.9] years). The number of NCS procedures among patients with LVAD increased from 64 in 2012 to 304 in 2017. The median (interquartile range) time from LVAD implantation to NCS was 309 (133-606) days. The most frequent type of NCS was general (613 abdominal, pelvic, and gastrointestinal procedures [46.2%]). Perioperative MACEs occurred in 169 patients (16.9%) undergoing emergent or urgent NCS and 23 patients (7.1%) undergoing elective NCS. Urgent or emergent NCS was associated with higher mortality early (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 8.78; 95% CI, 7.20-10.72; P < .001) and late (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.53-1.90; P < .001) after NCS compared with patients with LVAD who did not undergo NCS. Elective NCS was also associated with higher mortality early (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.74-4.03; P < .001) and late (aHR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07-1.56; P = .008) after NCS. Conclusions and Relevance: One of 6 patients with LVAD underwent NCS. Perioperative MACEs were frequent. Higher mortality risk transcended the early postoperative period in urgent or emergent and elective surgical procedures.

Pediatric Ventricular Assist Device Support in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the changes in heart transplantation (HTx) waiting list mortality following the introduction of the Berlin Heart EXCOR (BH EXCOR) in the Netherlands, as well as the occurrence of adverse events in these children. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center study was conducted including all pediatric patients (≤18 years) awaiting HTx. Patients were grouped in two eras based on availability of the BH EXCOR in our center, era I (1998-2006; not available) and era II (2007 to July 31, 2018; available). RESULTS: In total, 87 patients were included, 15 in era I and 72 in era II. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support was required in 1 (7%) patient in era I and in 13 (18%) patients in era II. Overall mortality (7/15 in era I vs 16/72 in era II; 47% vs 22%, P = .06) and transplantation rates (8/15 in era I vs 47/72 in era II; 53% vs 65%, P = .39) did not differ significantly. Eleven (39%) patients of the pediatric ventricular assist device (VAD) population died, with the predominant cause being cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs) in eight (29%) patients. Furthermore, 14 (50%) of the pediatric VAD patients survived to transplantation. Adverse events most frequently occurring in VAD patients included CVA in 14 (50%), mostly (68%) within 30 days after VAD implantation, and bleeding requiring rethoracotomy in 14 (50%), all within 30 days after VAD implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the BH EXCOR has positively impacted the survival of pediatric patients with end-stage heart failure in our center. The predominant cause of death changed from end-stage heart failure in era I to CVA in era II. We emphasize the need for large prospective registry-based studies.

The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs 2019 Annual Report: The Changing Landscape of Devices and Indications.

BACKGROUND: The field of mechanical circulatory support has been impacted by the approval of new continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and changes to the United States heart allocation system. METHODS: Primary isolated continuous-flow LVAD implants in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs registry from January 2014 through September 2019 were evaluated. Survival and freedom from major adverse events were compared between axial-flow, centrifugal-flow with hybrid levitation (CF-HL), and centrifugal-flow with full magnetic levitation (CF-FML) devices. RESULTS: Of 2603 devices implanted in 2014, 1824 (70.1%) were axial flow and 1213 (46.6%) were destination therapy (DT); through September 2019, 1752 devices were implanted, but only 37 (2.1%) were axial flow and 1230 (70.2%) were DT. Implants were performed in 13,016 patients between 2014 and 2018. Patients receiving implants in 2017-2018 compared with 2014-2016 were more likely to be at Intermacs profile 1 (17.1% vs 14.3%, P < .001) and to have preimplant temporary mechanical circulatory support (34.8% vs 29.3%, P < .001). Overall survival and freedom from major adverse events were higher with CF-FML devices. In multivariable analysis of survival between CF-HL and CF-FML, device type was not a significant early hazard, but the use of CF-HL devices had a late hazard ratio for death of 3.01 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 5 years, centrifugal-flow LVADs have become the dominant technology and DT the most common implant strategy. While outcomes with CF-FML devices are promising, comparisons with other devices from nonrandomized registry studies should be made with caution.

Trends in HeartMate 3: What we know so far.

BACKGROUND: The HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a novel, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow pump with a fully magnetically-levitated rotor designed to provide hemodynamic support in patients with end-stage heart failure. Unique aspects of this LVAD have allowed for improved hemocompatibility and the development of minimally-invasive implantation techniques. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched for publications relating to the HeartMate 3 device, with a focus on hemocompatibility related outcomes, anticoagulation management, and surgical techniques. RESULTS: Nine articles analyzing hemocompatibility related outcomes from two clinical trials, two clinical studies, and one registry series were identified. CONCLUSION: HeartMate 3 has reduced the rate of disabling stroke and pump thrombosis. However, despite increased hemocompatibility due to specialized design features, the residual risk of both surgical, and gastrointestinal bleeding remains a major adverse outcome. Different anticoagulation management and surgical techniques have been evaluated to address the remaining complications.

The ethical conundrum: Conflicting advocacy positions in advanced heart failure therapy.

It is estimated that nearly 6.5 million Americans over the age of 20 suffer from heart failure. Heart failure is the leading cause of hospitalization in patients over 65 years of age, and carries with it a 5-year mortality of nearly 50%. Despite advances in medical therapy, treatment for medically refractory end-stage, advanced heart failure is limited to heart transplant, mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or palliative care only. Patient selection in advanced heart failure (AHF) therapy is complex. Not only are the patients medically complicated, but providers are biased by their individual and collective experience with similar and dissimilar patients. Clinicians caring for AHF patients balance competing clinical and ethical demands, which appropriately leads to professional debate and disagreement. These debates are constructive because they clarify ethical and professional commitments and help to ensure fair and equitable treatment of AHF patients.

Update on heart failure management and future directions.

Heart failure (HF) is an important cardiovascular disease because of its increasing prevalence, significant morbidity, high mortality, and rapidly expanding health care cost. The number of HF patients is increasing worldwide, and Korea is no exception. There have been marked advances in definition, diagnostic modalities, and treatment of HF over the past four decades. There is continuing effort to improve risk stratification of HF using biomarkers, imaging and genetic testing. Newly developed medications and devices for HF have been widely adopted in clinical practice. Furthermore, definitive treatment for end-stage heart failure including left ventricular assist device and heart transplantation are rapidly evolving as well. This review summarizes the current state-of-the-art management for HF and the emerging diagnostic and therapeutic modalities to improve the outcome of HF patients.

Mitral Valve Compression Induced Hypoxemia After Left Ventricular Assist Device Surgery: A Case Report.

Blood flow obstruction of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is not uncommon. Causes of flow obstructions could be prepump, intrapump, and postpump. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters of LVAD obstruction vary substantially, ranging from being completely asymptomatic with unchanged functional status, normal filling pressures to frank cardiogenic shock. In the current case report, we present hypoxemia as an early presentation of LVAD inflow obstruction in the early postimplantation period in the absence of respiratory cause for hypoxemia.

[The Role of Extracorporeal Ventricular Assist Device is Changing in the Era of Implantable Ventricular Assist Device].

In the era of implantable ventricular assist device (VAD), the role of extracorporeal VAD is changing. The extracorporeal VAD was ever the mainstream of treatment for severe heart failure. Now, it is mainly applied to patients with severe cardiogenic shock. Recently the centrifugal pump available for cardiopulmonary bypass system has been often used as the extracorporeal VAD because of its simplicity of management. Although the implantable VAD plays the pivotal role for bridge to transplantation since its clinical introduction in 2011, the extracorporeal VAD still has the important role for end-stage heart failure and cardiogenic shock. We have experienced 47 cases of the extracorporeal VAD until now. Here, based on our experience, we describe the "past and present" role of the extracorporeal VAD and mention the future aspect of the extracorporeal VAD.

3D echocardiography derived right ventricular function is associated with right ventricular failure and mid-term survival after left ventricular assist device implantation.

BACKGROUND: Right heart failure remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. Multiple 2D echocardiography derived parameters are associated with right ventricular failure (RV failure), but none of them has been proven to be a reliable predictor to date. We hypothesized that novel 3D-echocardiography (3DE) based parameters are associated with RV failure and predict long term outcome in patients undergoing LVAD implantation. METHODS: This single-center study retrospectively enrolled 26 patients undergoing continuous-flow LVAD implantation. RV failure was defined as prolonged inotropic support for >14 days after LVAD implantation or consecutive implantation of a right ventricular assist device. Based on transesophageal 3DE datasets acquired prior to surgery right ventricular size, ejection fraction and longitudinal strains were calculated. RESULTS: The overall RV failure rate was 19.2%. Patients suffering from RV failure had a significantly impaired 3D-right ventricular ejection fraction (3D-RVEF; 28 ±â€¯2% vs. 19 ±â€¯3%, p = 0.0145) and 3D derived RV free wall longitudinal strain (3D-RV-fws; -13.2 ±â€¯0.97% vs. -6.4 ±â€¯1.98%; p = 0.0056) when compared to patients without RV failure. ROC analysis for 3D-RV-fws (AUC 0.914) and 3D-RVEF (AUC 0.876) showed high discriminative capabilities in regard to detection of RV failure. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed an improved long-term survival of patients with a 3D-RV-fws <-11.9%. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-echocardiography derived RV ejection fraction and RV free wall strain are associated with right ventricular failure and long term outcome in patients undergoing LVAD implantation. These parameters have the potential to be future predictors for right heart failure in LVAD surgery.

A continuous-flow external ventricular assist device for cardiogenic shock: Evolution over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in the treatment of cardiogenic shock has increased. However, limitations in flow capability, ventricular unloading effect, durability, and mobility remain. We reviewed our single-center experience with continuous-flow external ventricular assist devices (VADs) to determine the role of temporary VADs for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary MCS era. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 252 patients who underwent continuous-flow external VAD insertion between January 2007 and December 2016. To investigate the change in indications, device configurations, and outcomes, we divided the cohort into 2 groups-2007 to 2011 (Era 1; n = 127) and 2012 to 2016 (Era 2; n = 125)-and compared early and late outcomes. RESULTS: Indications and device configurations changed significantly over time. The use of preoperative percutaneous MCS (53% vs 23%; P < .01) and use of minimally invasive VAD configurations (23% vs 6.7%; P < .01) were greater in Era 2 compared with Era 1. The rate of bridge to the next destinations, including myocardial recovery, transplantation, and durable VAD, was similar in the 2 groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly better in Era 2 (50% vs 37%; P = .04). Overall survival at 1 year was 57% in Era 2 versus 43% in Era 1 (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Better outcomes in the recent era could be associated with the changes in practice patterns using continuous-flow external VAD in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock.