Mortality in Recipients of Durable Left Ventricular Assist Devices Undergoing Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients have a higher incidence of ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, the role of VT ablation in this population is not well-established. OBJECTIVES: This single-center retrospective cohort study sought to examine the impact of post-LVAD implant VT ablation on survival. METHODS: This retrospective study examined a cohort of patients that underwent LVAD implantation at Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center and Texas Heart Institute between January 2011 and January 2021. All-cause estimated mortality was compared across LVAD recipients based on the incidence of VT, timing of VT onset, and the occurrence and timing of VT ablation utilizing Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Post-implant VT occurred in 53% of 575 LVAD recipients. Higher mortality was seen among patients with post-implant VT within a year of implantation (HR: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.15-2.27]). Among this cohort, patients who were treated with a catheter ablation had superior survival compared with patients treated with medical therapy alone for the 45 months following VT onset (HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.26-0.89]). Moreover, performance of an ablation in this population aligned mortality rates with those who did not experience post-implant VT (HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.71-1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: VT occurrence within 1 year of LVAD implantation was associated with worse survival. However, performance of VT ablation in this population was correlated with improved survival compared with medical management alone. Among patients with refractory VT, catheter ablation aligned survival with other LVAD participants without post-implant VT. Catheter ablation of VT is associated with improved survival in LVAD recipients, but further prospective randomized studies are needed to compare VT ablation to medical management in LVAD recipients.

Accuracy of Postoperative Risk Scores for Survival Prediction in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1 Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients.

In this study, we sought to determine the accuracy of several critical care risk scores for predicting survival of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) Profile 1 patients after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) placement. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 605 patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between 2003 and 2016. We calculated the preoperative HeartMate II Risk Score (HMRS) and preoperative Right Ventricular Failure Risk Score (RVFRS) and the following risk scores for postoperative days 1-5: HMRS, RVFRS, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-eXcluding International Normalized Ratio, Post Cardiac Surgery (POCAS) risk score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) risk score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III. The preoperative scores and the postoperative day 1, 5-day mean, and 5-day maximum scores were entered into a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to examine accuracy for predicting 30-day, 90-day, and 1-year survival. The mean POCAS score was the best predictor of 30-day and 90-day survival (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.869 and 0.816). The postoperative mean RVFRS was the best predictor of 1-year survival (AUC = 0.7908). The postoperative maximum and mean RVFRS and HMRS were more accurate than the preoperative scores. Both of these risk score measurements of acuity in the postoperative intensive care unit setting help predict early mortality after LVAD implantation.

Outcomes of Repeat Left Ventricular Assist Device Exchange.

Implantable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are used for long-term LV support in bridging patients to heart transplantation or as destination therapy. With prolonged support times, some patients will have repeat complications necessitating multiple device exchanges. To elucidate the safety and efficacy of repeat device exchange, we retrospectively reviewed data from 25 patients who underwent two or more CF-LVAD implantations between July 2005 and August 2017. Indications for exchange were thrombus/hemolysis (n = 8, 32%), electromechanical device malfunction (n = 14, 56%), and infection (n = 3, 12%). The implanted devices were the HeartMate II (n = 13, 52%), the HeartWare HVAD (n = 11, 44%), and the Jarvik 2000 (n = 1, 4%). Average hospital length of stay was 44 days (range 4-221 days), and 17 patients (68%) survived to discharge. Average duration of support after the most recent LVAD implantation was 802 days (range 1-3,229 days). Overall survival was 72% at 1 year and 60% at 2 years. Postoperative complications included respiratory failure in five patients (20%), device infection in five (20%), bleeding requiring reoperation in four (16%), neurologic dysfunction in four (16%), and acute renal failure in two (8%). Overall, our data suggest that repeat LVAD exchange is a feasible option for patients with recurrent device-related complications.