ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: No clear guidelines exist for perioperative anticoagulation management after durable left ventricular assist device insertion. In this study, we sought to compare outcomes between anti-factor Xa (FXa) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) in monitoring unfractionated heparin (UFH) dosing after HeartMate 3 (HM3) insertion. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective review of patients who received UFH after HM3 insertion between 01/2020-12/2022. Post-operative UFH dose was titrated by aPTT goal 45-60 sec (n = 53) or FXa goal 0.1-0.2 U/mL (n = 59). Baseline differences between cohorts were balanced by inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: At baseline, unadjusted FXa patients were more likely to be white (47.5% vs. 35.8%, p < 0.001), INTERMACS 1-2 (69.5% vs. 47.2%, p = 0.013), have history of coronary artery disease (66.1% vs. 43.4%, p = 0.026), and lower eGFR (54.1 vs. 63.7 mL/min/1.73 m2, p = 0.029) compared to the aPTT group. After adjusting for several bleeding/thrombosis risk factors, 97.5% of FXa and 91.0% of aPTT patients reached therapeutic levels with comparable UFH duration and maximum dose. Moreover, in-hospital mortality (2.5% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.842), major bleeding events (4.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.360), and thromboembolic events (21.8% vs. 10.1%, p = 0.151) remained without significant differences between FXa and aPTT cohorts. There was a high degree of variability in FXa (r2 = 0.20) and aPTT (r2 = 0.22) values for any given UFH dose. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in frequency of bleeding or thromboembolic events were observed in this study between FXa versus aPTT cohorts after HM3 implantation. More longitudinal studies are warranted to determine whether or not one assay is superior to the other.
ABSTRACT
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.