Management of hypertension in heart transplant recipients: an ongoing conundrum.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension remains one of the most common clinical problems leading to significant posttransplant complications. This study reviews the pathophysiology of hypertension in the postcardiac transplant phase and provides an update on currently available antihypertensive therapies for heart transplant patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The true prevalence of hypertension in the heart transplant population remains unknown. Effective blood pressure (BP) control is key to prevent left ventricular remodeling, diastolic dysfunction and stroke. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are the most commonly and preferred agents in the early posttransplant phase and may have renal protective effects. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can all be used as second line antihypertensive agents and may have a role in preventing other long-term complications such as calcineurin-inhibitor induced nephropathy. Although more data are needed, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) appeared to be well tolerated and could be considered especially in the presence of type diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Conversely, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) have not been studied in the heart transplant population therefore cannot be recommended at this time. SUMMARY: Hypertension is very common after heart transplant. Early steroid wean and traditional risk factor modification play an important part in the management of post-heart transplant hypertension. CCB, ACEI, ARB are the preferred antihypertensive agents to improve postcardiac transplant complications. Novel therapies such as SGLT2i appear well tolerated and may have benefits in both BP and glycemic control in heart transplant; however, larger trials are needed.

Management of hypertension in patients supported with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension remains one of the most common clinical problems leading to devastating postleft ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant complications. This study reviews the pathophysiology of hypertension in the setting of continuous flow LVAD support and provides an update on currently available antihypertensive therapies for LVAD patients. RECENT FINDINGS: The true prevalence of hypertension in the LVAD population remains unknown. Effective blood pressure (BP) control and standardization of BP measurement are key to prevent suboptimal left ventricular unloading, pump malfunction and worsening aortic regurgitation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) are the preferred antihypertensive agents because of their additional potential benefits, including optimization of haemodynamics, prevention of stroke, gastrointestinal bleed and in some patients myocardial recovery. Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) may be a well tolerated and effective therapy for BP control especially among CF-LVAD patients with resistant hypertension. Similarly, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) should be considered in the absence of contraindications. SUMMARY: Hypertension is very common post-LVAD implant. Heart failure guideline directed medical therapies, including ACEI, ARB, beta blockers and MRA, are the preferred antihypertensive agents to improve post-LVAD outcomes.

Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure (GUIDE-HF): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.

New concepts in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and hypertension.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension (HTN) remains the most common and strongest contributing factor to the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In this review, we aim to summarize the pathophysiological processes linking HTN to HFpEF and highlight novel concepts in medical and device-based management of HFpEF and HTN. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite the global increase in the prevalence of HFpEF, there has been limited benefit in current medication and device-based therapy for this complex syndrome. The hallmark of HFpEF is an elevated left intra-atrial and ventricular pressure and exertional dyspnea. Traditional medications used for treating HTN in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction have unclear benefits in patients with HFpEF. Careful analysis of emerging medications such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors showed benefit in reducing not only blood pressure but also hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF. Current data on device-based therapy aims to reduce left intra-atrial pressure, ventricular pressure and stimulate baroreceptors to lower blood pressure; however, needs further investigation. SUMMARY: The nexus of HTN and HFpEF remains strong and complex. Although traditional medications for treating HFrEF did not affect long-term outcomes, novel therapies with angiotensin receptor neprilysin-inhibitor and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor offer promising results. Many device-based interventions in the HFpEF population are being developed with the aim to reduce left intra-atrial and ventricular pressure; however, their role in HFpEF hypertensive patients needs to be further investigated.

Cerebral protection during percutaneous intervention for left ventricular assist device outflow graft obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) outflow graft obstruction is an uncommon complication but carries significant morbidity and mortality. Here we provide a case series of patients with LVAD intrinsic outflow graft obstruction who are deemed to be a high surgical risk for pump exchange and, therefore, underwent percutaneous intervention with the concomitant use of neuroprotective device-Sentinel cerebral protection system (CPS) (Boston Scientific) to prevent embolic stroke. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent LVAD placement in our institution and developed LVAD outflow graft obstruction. The diagnosis of LVAD outflow graft obstruction was confirmed by utilizing various cardiac imaging modalities such as echocardiography and/or computed tomography angiography. All patients were treated with percutaneous intervention and a catheter-based CPS. RESULTS: From a total of 501 LVAD implants in our institute, 6 (1.2%) patients with LVAD outflow graft obstruction who underwent percutaneous treatment were included; 4 patients with HeartMate-III LVAD, 1 patient with HeartMate-II LVAD, and 1 patient with HeartWare (HVAD). The median age of patients was 56.5 years at the time of LVAD implantation. The median time from the LVAD implantation to the episode of LVAD outflow obstruction was 1343 days. Utilization of Sentinel CPS resulted in the capture and removal of thrombus/debris in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous intervention of LVAD outflow graft obstruction is less invasive than surgical pump exchange and an acceptable alternative in properly selected patients. In our experience, utilization of a catheter-based CPS can help in reducing the incidence of periprocedural embolic events.

PET Stress Testing with Coronary Flow Capacity in the Evaluation of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Rethinking the Current Paradigm.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiomyopathy with underlying left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is a heterogenous group of disorders that may be present with, and/or secondary to, coronary artery disease (CAD). The purpose of this review is to demonstrate, via case illustrations, the benefits offered by cardiac positron-emission tomography (PET) stress testing with coronary flow capacity (CFC) in the evaluation and treatment of patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and CAD. RECENT FINDINGS: CFC, a metric that is increasing in prominence, represents the integration of several absolute perfusion metrics into clinical strata of CAD severity. Our prior work has demonstrated improvement in regional perfusion metrics as a result of revascularization to territories with severe reduction in CFC. Conversely, when CFC is adequate, there is no change in regional perfusion metrics following revascularization, despite angiographically severe stenosis. Furthermore, Gould et al. demonstrated decreased rates of myocardial infarction and death following revascularization of myocardium with severely reduced CFC, with no clinical benefit observed following revascularization of patients with preserved CFC. In a series of cases, we present pre-revascularization and post-revascularization PET scans with perfusion metrics in patients with LV dysfunction and CAD. In these examples, we demonstrate improvement in LV function and perfusion metrics following revascularization only in cases where baseline CFC is severely reduced. PET with CFC offers unique guidance regarding revascularization in patients with reduced LV function and CAD.

Hypertension in cardiac transplant recipients: tackling a new face of an old foe.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Systemic hypertension (HTN) is a common complication arising in the heart transplant recipient. This article aims to review the most current literature and update readers on the epidemiology, pathophysiology and management of HTN in heart transplant patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In contrast to the general nontransplant hypertensive patient population, traditional risk factors, including family history of HTN, obesity and diabetes, play a minor role in the genesis of posttransplant HTN. Dysregulation in sodium and water balance, vascular stiffness, endothelial dysfunction, abnormal cardiorenal neural reflexes resulting from immunosuppression and cardiac denervation seem to be the predominant factors leading to postheart transplant HTN. Calcineurin inhibitors induced nephrotoxicity and steroid use further contributes to posttransplant HTN. SUMMARY: Owing to the paucity of data, particularly randomized controlled trials to guide the evaluation and management of HTN in the cardiac transplant patients, much of the available data come from the renal transplant population. The choice of antihypertensive should be based on timing related to transplantation and patient's comorbidities. Although calcium channel blockers and loop diuretics are the preferred agents in the early postheart transplant period, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers may be beneficial in the late postheart transplant period especially in the setting of diabetes and in the presence of proteinuria.

Managing hypertension in patients with heart failure: an ongoing quandary.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension (HTN) is one of the strongest risk factors for heart failure and is prevalent in up to 91% of patients with newly diagnosed heart failure. This article offers a practical approach to HTN in patients with heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: To date, no randomized trials comparing specific antihypertensive regimens have been conducted in the heart failure population. Management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with elevated blood pressure (BP) should include guideline-directed medical therapy [angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), aldosterone receptor blockers, AT1 neprilysin-inhibitors, beta blockers and aldosterone blockers] titrated to maximal tolerated doses regardless of BP. Despite the lack of survival benefit current available data suggest the use of ACEis, aldosterone receptor blockers as first-line therapy for HTN in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. SUMMARY: Management of HTN in heart failure patients should be based on left ventricular function. Recent findings suggest that AT1 neprilysin-inhibitors offer better BP control when compared with ACEi, or aldosterone receptor blockers and therefore should be used as first-line therapy in hypertensive patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Their role as antihypertensive agents in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seems promising but remains under investigation.

Left ventricular assist devices in the treatment of advanced heart failure.

The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is becoming the standard of care in treating patients with advanced heart failure. This article describes available LVADs, their clinical indications, and important caveats when caring for this complex patient population.

A Multisite Randomized Controlled Trial of a Patient-Centered Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid (VADDA Trial).

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that decision making and informed consent among patients considering left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support for advanced heart failure could be improved. In the VADDA (Ventricular Assist Device Decision Aid) trial, we tested a patient-centered decision aid (DA) to enhance the quality of decision making about LVAD therapy. METHODS: After an extensive user-centered design process, we conducted a multisite randomized trial of the DA compared with standard education (SE) among inpatients considering LVAD treatment for advanced heart failure The main outcome was LVAD knowledge at 1 week and 1 month after administration of the DA versus the SE, according to a validated scale. Secondary measures included prespecified quality decision making measures recommended by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration. RESULTS: Of 105 eligible patients, 98 consented and were randomly assigned to the DA and SE arms. Patients receiving the VADDA exhibited significantly greater LVAD knowledge than the SE group at 1 week of follow-up (P = .01) but not at 1 month (P = .47). No differences were found between DA and SE patients in rates of acceptance versus decline of LVAD treatment (85% vs 78%; P = .74). Recipients in the DA arm reported greater satisfaction with life after implantation compared with nonrecipients (28 vs 23 out of 30; P = .008), although both arms reported high satisfaction. Patients rated the DA high in acceptability and usability. CONCLUSIONS: The VADDA enhances LVAD knowledge, particularly in the short term (1 week) during the peak period of decision making. The DA does not encourage decision direction and reflects patient, caregiver, and physician preferences for content and format. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02248974. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02248974).

Hypertensive crisis: an update on clinical approach and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Here, we review current concepts on hypertensive crisis (HTN-C) with a focus on epidemiology, causes, pathophysiology and prognosis. We also offer a practical approach to the management of HTN-C. RECENT FINDINGS: HTN-C is characterized by a severe and abrupt increase in blood pressure (BP) with impending or progressive acute end-organ damage (EOD). HTN-C can be divided into hypertensive emergency (HTN-E) and hypertensive urgency (HTN-U) based on the presence or absence of acute EOD, respectively. Recent retrospective studies have demonstrated that emergency department (ED) referrals from an outpatient clinic or rapid BP-lowering strategies in the ED do not lead to improved outcomes in patients with HTN-U. SUMMARY: HTN-C can be a de-novo manifestation or a complication of essential or secondary HTN. The presence of acute EOD is a major poor prognostic indicator in HTN-C. The main objectives of the management of HTN-C are distinction of HTN-E from HTN-U and appropriate risk stratification, prevention or regression of acute EOD due to severely elevated BP, prevention of recurrence of HTN-C with an effective long-term management plan and avoidance of rapid lowering of BP except in some special circumstances. The majority of patients with asymptomatic HTN-U can be safely managed in the outpatient setting without exposing them to the risks of aggressive BP lowering. However, patients with HTN-E require hospitalization, prompt treatment and close monitoring.

Hypertension and ethnicity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite its continued increase in prevalence in minorities, data regarding hypertension (HTN) control among such ethnic groups remains limited. This review highlights the most recent literature on the epidemiology, prevalence, and treatment strategies of HTN among four racial groups (non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians). RECENT FINDINGS: Overall awareness and treatment of HTN were found to be higher in blacks when compared with NHWs. Access to health insurance is associated with successful HTN control, particularly among the Hispanic populations. Recent data from SBP Intervention Trial suggests the blood pressure control and adherence rates in blacks were highest among men, with a higher number of comorbidities, and on diuretic therapy. Additionally, the initiation of thiazide-type diuretics and calcium channel blocker was superior to ß-adrenergic blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockers in blood pressure lowering among blacks. However, no specific treatment recommendations exist for Hispanics or Asians. Finally, recent guidelines from the Joint National Commission recommend initial treatment with a thiazide-type diuretic regardless of race. SUMMARY: Despite recent progress, racial disparities in awareness and treatment of HTN continue to exist. To reduce this important gap, future research should focus on epidemiologic, genetic, and sociologic factors as well as specific therapies to achieve maximum medical benefit in these subgroups.

Clinical characteristics and in hospital outcomes of heart transplant recipients with allograft vasculopathy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy is a major cause of morbidity and mortality following heart transplantation. Large multicenter studies evaluating the clinical characteristics and inhospital outcomes of heart transplant recipients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and inhospital outcomes of heart transplant recipients undergoing PCI compared to general population. METHODS: We analyzed 1,897,328 patients from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry who underwent PCI of at least 1 native vessel between July 2009 and December 2013 from 1,477 centers, of which 542 patients (0.03%) were heart transplant recipients. Clinical characteristics were evaluated and, after 1:4 propensity matching, inhospital outcomes were compared between 538 heart transplant patients and 2,128 non-transplant patients. RESULTS: Transplant recipients undergoing PCI had a higher prevalence of diabetes, dyslipidemia and peripheral vascular disease; lower prevalence of angina, acute coronary syndrome, abnormal noninvasive functional study, and type C coronary lesions compared to the non-transplant PCI population. After propensity matching, all-cause inhospital mortality was similar between transplant and non-transplant groups (1.3% vs 1.0%; OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.54-2.67). CONCLUSION: This is the largest series to date outlining the characteristics of heart transplant recipients undergoing PCI. Similar inhospital outcomes were noted in heart transplant recipients compared to the general population. Further studies evaluating long-term outcomes are warranted.

State of the art on angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and sympathetic nervous systems (SNS) activity promoting vasodilation, decreasing myocardial hypertrophy and fibrosis. Beyond the SNS, RAAS and natriuretic peptide systems, ARNI results in increased circulatory and myocardial nitric oxide levels activating cGMP and protein kinase G, which reduces oxidative stress, myocyte hypertrophy, cell death and has anti-thrombotic effects. ARNIs have a class I indication by heart failure (HF) guidelines in HFrEF patients with NYHA class II to III symptoms. Beyond HFrEF, the use of ARNIs has also been expanded to other clinical settings including HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF, HFpEF), acute HF, advanced HF, hypertension, arrhythmias and chronic kidney disease. This paper reviews the clinical benefits of ARNIs in both HF and the aforementioned cardiovascular conditions. We also discuss the combined use of ARNI with SGLT2i and their potential synergistic benefits on cardiovascular outcomes.

Torsemide vs Furosemide Among Patients With New-Onset vs Worsening Chronic Heart Failure: A Substudy of the TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Differences in clinical profiles, outcomes, and diuretic treatment effects may exist between patients with de novo heart failure (HF) and worsening chronic HF (WHF). Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of torsemide vs furosemide in patients hospitalized with de novo HF vs WHF. Design, Setting, and Participants: All patients with a documented ejection fraction who were randomized in the Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure (TRANSFORM-HF) trial, conducted from June 18 through March 2022, were included in this post hoc analysis. Study data were analyzed March to May 2023. Exposure: Patients were categorized by HF type and further divided by loop diuretic strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points included all-cause mortality and hospitalization outcomes over 12 months, as well as change from baseline in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS). Results: Among 2858 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.5 [14.0] years; 1803 male [63.1%]), 838 patients (29.3%) had de novo HF, and 2020 patients (70.7%) had WHF. Patients with de novo HF were younger (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [14.5] years vs 66.1 [13.5] years), had a higher glomerular filtration rate (mean [SD], 68.6 [24.9] vs 57.0 [24.0]), lower levels of natriuretic peptides (median [IQR], brain-type natriuretic peptide, 855.0 [423.0-1555.0] pg/mL vs 1022.0 [500.0-1927.0] pg/mL), and tended to be discharged on lower doses of loop diuretic (mean [SD], 50.3 [46.2] mg vs 63.8 [52.4] mg). De novo HF was associated with lower all-cause mortality at 12 months (de novo, 65 of 838 [9.1%] vs WHF, 408 of 2020 [25.4%]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38-0.66; P < .001). Similarly, lower all-cause first rehospitalization at 12 months and greater improvement from baseline in KCCQ-CSS at 12 months were noted among patients with de novo HF (median [IQR]: de novo, 29.94 [27.35-32.54] vs WHF, 23.68 [21.62-25.74]; adjusted estimated difference in means: 6.26; 95% CI, 3.72-8.81; P < .001). There was no significant difference in mortality with torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo (No. of events [rate per 100 patient-years]: torsemide, 27 [7.4%] vs furosemide, 38 [10.9%]; aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.14; P = .15) or WHF (torsemide 212 [26.8%] vs furosemide, 196 [24.0%]; aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = .42; P for interaction = .10), In addition, no significant differences in hospitalizations, first all-cause hospitalization, or total hospitalizations at 12 months were noted with a strategy of torsemide vs furosemide in either de novo HF or WHF. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, de novo HF was associated with better clinical and patient-reported outcomes when compared with WHF. Regardless of HF type, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide with respect to 12-month clinical or patient-reported outcomes.

Outcomes of Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Requiring Intermittent Hemodialysis: Single-Center Cohort, Systematic Review, and Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis.

Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) who require intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) are considered to have a poor prognosis despite a paucity of supportive evidence, mostly from small single-center cohorts and extrapolations from studies of patients who received continuous renal replacement therapy but no iHD. We conducted a systematic review and individual-participant-data meta-analysis of the literature including our single-center cohort to examine the outcomes of patients initiated on iHD following LVAD implantation. Sixty-four patients from 5 cohorts met selection criteria (age 57.5 [46-64.5] years, 87% HeartMate II, mostly bridge to transplantation). Follow-up after iHD initiation was 87.5 (38.5-269.5) days, although it was considerably longer in our center than in other cohorts (601.5 [93-1559] days vs 65 [26-180] days, P = 0.0007). The estimated median survival was 308 (76-912.5) days and varied significantly among cohorts, ranging from 60 (57-65) to 838 (103-1872) days (P = 0.0096). Twelve (18.8%) patients achieved either heart transplantation (HT) or remission during follow-up. Patients who received HT had an 8-fold longer estimated median survival (1972 [799-1972] days vs 244 [64-838] days, P = 0.0112). Being from a more recent cohort was associated with better 1-year survival. Renal recovery occurred in eight patients (13.1%) at 30 days and its cumulative incidence increased to 73% (27/37 patients with available data) at 1 year. Most patients initiated on iHD after LVAD experienced renal recovery within the first year after implantation. Improved survival was observed for patients who received HT and in those from more recent cohorts. Some patients were able to survive on LVAD and iHD support for several years.

An ISHLT consensus statement on strategies to prevent and manage hemocompatibility related adverse events in patients with a durable, continuous-flow ventricular assist device.

Life expectancy of patients with a durable, continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) continues to increase. Despite significant improvements in the delivery of care for patients with these devices, hemocompatability-related adverse events (HRAEs) are still a concern and contribute to significant morbility and mortality when they occur. As such, dissemination of current best evidence and practices is of critical importance. This ISHLT Consensus Statement is a summative assessment of the current literature on prevention and management of HRAEs through optimal management of oral anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications, parenteral anticoagulant medications, management of patients at high risk for HRAEs and those experiencing thrombotic or bleeding events, and device management outside of antithrombotic medications. This document is intended to assist clinicians caring for patients with a CF-LVAD provide the best care possible with respect to prevention and management of these events.

Micronutrients in chronic heart failure.

Heart failure (HF)-associated mortality remains high, despite guideline-recommended medical therapies. Poor nutritional status and unintentional cachexia have been shown to have a strong association with worse survival in HF patients. Importantly, micronutrient deficiencies are potential contributing factors to the progression of HF. This review aims to summarize contemporary evidence on the role of micronutrients in the pathophysiology and outcome of HF patients. Emphasis will be given to the most well-studied micronutrients, specifically, vitamin D, vitamin B complex, coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine.

Preimplant Hyponatremia Does Not Predict Adverse Outcomes in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Hyponatremia is a well-established marker of adverse outcomes in chronic heart failure (HF) but not well studied in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). This is a retrospective study, single center study of HM3 [Abbott, USA] LVAD implants. We divided our population based on their sodium prior to LVAD implantation - hyponatremia if <135 mEq/L and normal sodium if 135-145 mEq/L. We compared postoperative and long-term outcomes. A total of 195 patients were included, preimplant hyponatremia was present in 40% with a sodium of 132.1 ± 2.1 vs 137.8 ± 1.9 mEq/L in the normal sodium group. No differences were observed in the postoperative or long-term outcomes. Preimplant hyponatremia was not associated with mortality or HF admissions, likely due to adequate left ventricular unloading and resolution of the mechanisms that lead to hyponatremia. These results suggest that optimization of mild hyponatremia may not be critical and should not delay LVAD placement.

Effect of Early Amiodarone Use on Warfarin Sensitivity, Blood Product Use, and Bleeding in Patients With a Left Ventricular Assist Device.

Data are scarce on the effect of amiodarone on warfarin sensitivity and related outcomes after placement of a left ventricular assist device (VAD). This retrospective study compared 30-day outcomes between patients on amiodarone vs no amiodarone after VAD implant. After exclusions, 220 patients received amiodarone and 136 patients did not. Compared to the no amiodarone group, the amiodarone group had a higher warfarin dosing index (0.53 [0.39, 0.79] vs 0.46 [0.34, 0.63]; P = 0.003), incidence of INR ≥ 4 (40.5 vs 23.5%; P = 0.001), incidence of bleeding (24.1 vs 14%; P = 0.021), and use of INR reversal agents (14.5 vs 2.9%, P ≤ 0.001). Amiodarone was associated with bleeding (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.10-3.47; P = 0.022), but not after adjusting for age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and platelet count (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.92-3.03; P = 0.089). After VAD implant, amiodarone was associated with increased warfarin sensitivity and administration of INR reversal agents.