Missed Opportunities in Identifying Cardiomyopathy Aetiology Prior to Advanced Heart Failure Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Specific aetiologies of cardiomyopathy can significantly impact treatment options as well as appropriateness and prioritisation for advanced heart failure therapies such as ventricular assist device (VAD) or orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT). We reviewed the tissue diagnoses of patients who underwent advanced therapies for heart failure (HF) to identify diagnostic discrepancies. METHODS: This study presents a retrospective cohort of the aetiology of cardiomyopathy in 118 patients receiving either durable VAD or OHT. Discrepancies between the preoperative aetiological diagnosis of cardiomyopathy with the pathological diagnosis were recorded. Echocardiographic and haemodynamic data were reviewed to examine differences in patients with differing aetiological diagnoses. RESULTS: Twelve (12) of 118 (12/118) (10.2%) had a pathological diagnosis that was discordant with pre-surgical diagnosis. The most common missed diagnoses were infiltrative cardiomyopathy (5) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (3). Patients with misidentified aetiology of cardiomyopathy had smaller left ventricular (LV) dimensions on echocardiography than patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (5.8±0.9 vs 6.7±1.1 respectively p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most HF patients undergoing VAD and OHT had a correct diagnosis for their heart failure prior to treatment, but a missed diagnosis at time of intervention (VAD or OHT) was not uncommon. Smaller LV dimension on echocardiogram in a patient with a non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy warrants further workup for a more specific aetiology.

Incidence and predictors of myocardial recovery on long-term left ventricular assist device support: Results from the United Network for Organ Sharing database.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) leads to favorable changes in the failing heart at the molecular, cellular, and structural levels. However, myocardial recovery leading to device explantation is rare. We reasoned that the multicenter United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry might provide insights into clinical predictors and outcomes of the recovery process. METHODS: The MCS device data set of the UNOS registry was queried for patients with long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) that were explanted for heart transplantation or indication of recovery. Analysis was restricted to adult patients (≥18 years old) who were listed for an initial heart transplantation. Patients with CF-LVADs that were explanted because of recovery were compared with patients with CF-LVADs who underwent transplantation. RESULTS: We identified 594 patients with HeartMate II devices and 92 patients with HeartWare devices. Duration of support was on average 500.4 ± 325.3 days. In 34 (5.0%) patients, devices were explanted secondary to myocardial recovery. Univariate predictors of recovery in patients with long-term LVADs included younger age (40 years vs 53 years), female sex, lower body mass index (25.7 kg/m(2) vs 27.9 kg/m(2)), non-ischemic etiology (91% vs 59%), lack of implantable cardioverter defibrillator at the time of listing (44% vs 79%), and lower serum creatinine (0.97 mg/dl vs 1.28 mg/dl) (all p < 0.05). In the post-explantation period, freedom from death or transplantation was 66% at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of recovery on device support is low in the current MCS era and limited to a select cohort of predominantly young patients with non-ischemic myopathy. Given the high incidence of disease recurrence, patients should be closely followed after device explantation.