The Longest Living Patient Supported With Left Ventricular Assist Device (14 Years).

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve survival and reduce symptoms in patients with advanced heart failure; however, the longer-term durability of LVADs remains uncertain especially with older-generation devices. In this case report, we describe the clinical course of a patient who has been successfully treated with the same HeartMate II LVAD for 14 years, the longest published and still ongoing LVAD support with the same originally implanted device.

Electrostatic Discharge Causing Pump Shutdown in HeartMate 3.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve symptoms and outcomes in advanced heart failure. Although device malfunction has decreased significantly with later generation LVADs, it has not been eliminated. We describe the clinical course of a patient with HeartMate 3 LVAD who experienced device malfunction, involving temporary pump shutdown suspected to be caused by electrostatic discharge. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Validation of non-invasive ramp testing for HeartMate 3.

AIMS: Ramp testing in the postoperative period can be used to optimize left ventricular assist device (LVAD) speed for optimal left ventricular (LV) unloading. We tested the hypothesis that a non-invasive echocardiographic ramp test post-HeartMate 3 implantation improves LV unloading immediately after and 1-3 months after as compared with before the test. We also tested a secondary hypothesis that speed adjustments during echocardiography-guided ramp testing do not worsen right ventricular (RV) function immediately after and 1-3 months after. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed data from patients who underwent an echocardiographic ramp test. A total of 14 out of 19 patients were clinically stable and were enrolled. Adequate LV unloading was defined as no more than mild mitral regurgitation, and intermittent aortic valve (AV) opening or closed AV, and reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD); and for the follow-up measurement, decreased NT-proBNP. Median (interquartile range) time from implantation to ramp test was 27 (16; 56) days, and median time from ramp test to follow-up echocardiography was 55 (47; 102) days. Median LVAD speed achieved during ramp testing was 5550 (5375; 6025) revolutions per minute (rpm), and median final LVAD speed was 5200 (5000; 5425) rpm. Ramp testing resulted in final LVAD speed increase in 11 (79%) patients and a median net change of 200 (200; 300) rpm. Speed adjustments after ramp testing resulted in improved LVAD unloading that was achieved in additional 3 (21%) patients who were not originally optimized. RV function did not worsen significantly during ramp testing or at final LVAD speed. CONCLUSIONS: The echocardiographic ramp test allowed LVAD speed adjustment and optimization and improved LV unloading during ramp testing and at final speed with no evidence of worsening of RV function.

Controller and battery changes due to technical problems related to the HVAD® left ventricular assist device - a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has increased in the last decade. Major complications have been well described, but there is no data on device alarms and actual or threatening malfunction which impair quality of life and may impair outcomes. This study describes the technical problems related to the use of the HVAD® left ventricular assist device in a single center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed device malfunctions and outcomes in 22 patients with HVAD® left ventricular assist device followed at Karolinska University Hospital between 2011 and 2016. Device malfunction was defined by INTERMACS as a failure of one or more of the components of the LVAD system. The primary outcome was defined as death or hospitalization or unplanned urgent clinic visit due to device alarm of unknown significance or actual or threatening malfunction. Separate secondary outcomes were malfunction resulting in controller exchange and malfunction resulting in battery change. Exploratory outcomes were death, transplantation, or explantation because of recovery. RESULTS: Median age was 59 years and 19% were women. Over a mean follow-up time of 1.7 years (37 patient-years), the primary outcome occurred 30 times (0.8 events per patient-year; 0 deaths, 2 hospitalizations and 28 un-planned clinic visits). Secondary outcomes were 41 device malfunctions for 14 patients requiring 45 controller exchanges in 12 patients (1.1 events per patient-year) and 128 battery changes in 12 patients (3.5 events per patient-year). Exploratory outcomes were 8 deaths (36.4%), 7 transplantations (31.8%) and 2 explants due to recovery (9.1%). CONCLUSION: The use of HVAD® was associated with technical problems requiring frequent un-planned clinic visits and changes of controller and/or batteries. There were no deaths due to device malfunction. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the risk of device malfunction and associated reductions in quality of life and cost.