A multi-institutional retrospective analysis on impact of RV acute mechanical support timing after LVAD implantation on 1-year mortality and predictors of RV acute mechanical support weaning.

BACKGROUND: There is little insight into which patients can be weaned off right ventricular (RV) acute mechanical circulatory support (AMCS) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We hypothesize that concomitant RV AMCS insertion instead of postoperative implantation will improve 1-year survival and increase the likelihood of RV AMCS weaning. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective database of 826 consecutive patients who received a HeartMate II or HVAD between January 2007 and December 2016 was analyzed. We identified 91 patients who had early RV AMCS on index admission. Cox proportional-hazards model was constructed to identify predictors of 1-year mortality post-RV AMCS implantation and competing risk modeling identified RV AMCS weaning predictors. RESULTS: There were 91 of 826 patients (11%) who required RV AMCS after CF-LVAD implantation with 51 (56%) receiving a concomitant RV AMCS and 40 (44%) implanted with a postoperative RV AMCS during their ICU stay; 48 (53%) patients were weaned from RV AMCS support. Concomitant RV AMCS with CF-LVAD insertion was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.45 [95% CI 0.26-0.80], p = 0.01) in multivariable model (which included age, BMI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use, and heart transplantation as a time-varying covariate). In the multivariate competing risk analysis, a TPG < 12 (SHR 2.19 [95% CI 1.02-4.70], p = 0.04) and concomitant RV AMCS insertion (SHR 3.35 [95% CI 1.73-6.48], p < 0.001) were associated with a successful wean. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RVF after LVAD implantation, concomitant RV AMCS insertion at the time of LVAD was associated with improved 1-year survival and increased chances of RV support weaning compared to postoperative insertion.

Prediction of right heart failure after left ventricular assist implantation: external validation of the EUROMACS right-sided heart failure risk score.

AIMS: Prediction of right heart failure (RHF) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implant remains a challenge. The EUROMACS right-sided heart failure (EUROMACS-RHF) risk score was proposed as a prediction tool for post-LVAD RHF but lacks from large external validation. The aim of our study was to externally validate the score. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2007 to December 2017, 878 continuous-flow LVADs were implanted at three tertiary centres. We calculated the EUROMACS-RHF score in 662 patients with complete data. We evaluated its predictive performance for early RHF defined as either (i) need for short- or long-term right-sided circulatory support, (ii) continuous inotropic support for ≥14 days, or (iii) nitric oxide for ≥48 h post-operatively. Right heart failure occurred in 211 patients (32%). When compared with non-RHF patients, pre-operatively they had higher creatinine, bilirubin, right atrial pressure, and lower INTERMACS class (P < 0.05); length of stay and in-hospital mortality were higher. Area under the ROC curve for RHF prediction of the EUROMACS-RHF score was 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.68]. Reclassification of patients with RHF was significantly better when applying the EUROMACS-RHF risk score on top of previous published scores. Patients in the high-risk category had significantly higher in-hospital and 2-year mortality [hazard ratio: 1.64 (95% CI 1.16-2.32) P = 0.005]. CONCLUSION: In an external cohort, the EUROMACS-RHF had limited discrimination predicting RHF. The clinical utility of this score remains to be determined.

Predicting and measuring mortality risk after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Introduction: Over the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment option for most patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). With growing indications and exponential increase in the number of TAVR procedures, it is important to be able to accurately predict mortality after TAVR.Areas covered: Herein, we review the surgical and TAVR-specific mortality prediction models (MPMs) and their performance in their original derivation and external validation cohorts. We then discuss the role of other important risk assessment tools such as frailty, echocardiographic parameters, and biomarkers in patients, being considered for TAVR.Expert opinion: Conventional surgical MPMs have suboptimal predictive performance and are mis-calibrated when applied to TAVR populations. Although a number of TAVR-specific MPMs have been developed, their utility is also limited by their modest discriminative ability when applied to populations external to their original derivation cohorts. There is an unmet need for robust TAVR MPMs that accurately predict post TAVR mortality. In the interim, heart teams should utilize the currently available TAVR-specific MPMs in conjunction with other prognostic factors, such as frailty, echocardiographic or computed tomography (CT) imaging parameters, and biomarkers for risk assessment of patients, being considered for TAVR.