Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices and the Aortic Valve: Interactions, Issues, and Surgical Therapy

Medium-term outcomes of concomitant aortic valve repair in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the development of aortic insufficiency in patients who received central aortic valve repair when undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent implantation with HeartMate II or 3 (Abbott Laboratories) between 2004 and 2022. Ninety-four patients were excluded from analysis for history of aortic valve procedures, a bicuspid aortic valve, baseline trace aortic insufficiency, or other concomitant aortic valve procedure. Patients who had mild or greater aortic insufficiency had concomitant aortic valve repair. Clinical characteristics, serial echocardiograms, and outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Of the 656 patients who underwent HeartMate II or 3 implantation, 105 patients (59 HeartMate II and 46 HeartMate 3) met study criteria. Median age was 68 years (60-74 years), 91.4% (n = 96) were male, 54.4% (n = 56) were White, and 68.6% (n = 72) received support as destination therapy. Preoperative aortic insufficiency degree was 54.3% (n = 57) mild, 23.8% (n = 25) mild-to-moderate, 20.0% (n = 21) moderate, 1.0% (n = 1) moderate-to-severe, and 1.0% (n = 1) severe. In hospital mortality was 5.7% (n = 6). Freedom from moderate or greater aortic insufficiency was 96.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.5%-100%), 93.3% (95% CI, 87.6%-99.2%), and 91.0% (95% CI, 84.1%-98.5%) at 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year postimplantation, respectively. One patient who received a HeartMate II experienced severe aortic insufficiency and was treated with a heart transplant. Three-year survival was 63.4% (95% CI, 52.9%-75.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Central aortic valve repair may be an effective technique to mitigate aortic insufficiency in HeartMate II and 3. A larger cohort study with longer duration of follow-up is warranted to further investigate the clinical effect.

Aortic Root Thrombosis in patients with HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device support

BACKGROUND

Aortic root thrombosis(ART) is a complication of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device therapy. However, the incidence and related complications of ART in HeartMate 3 (HM3) patients remain unknown.

METHODS

Patients who underwent HM3 implantation from November 2014 to August 2020 at a quaternary academic medical center were included. Demographics and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. Echocardiograms and contrast-enhanced computed tomography studies were reviewed to identify patients who developed ART and/or moderate or greater aortic insufficiency (AI) on HM3 support.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 197 HM3 patients with a median postimplant follow-up of 17.5 months. Nineteen patients (9.6%) developed ART during HM3 support, and 15 patients (7.6%) developed moderate or greater AI. Baseline age, gender, race, implantation strategy, and INTERMACS classification were similar between the ART and no-ART groups. ART was associated with an increased risk of death, stroke, or aortic valve (AV) intervention (subhazard ratio [SHR] 3.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-7.56]; p = 0.001) and moderate or greater AI (SHR 11.1 [CI 3.60-34.1]; p < 0.001) but was not associated with a statistically significantly increased risk of death or stroke on HM3 support (2.12 [0.86-5.22]; p = 0.10). Of the 19 patients with ART, 6 (31.6%) developed moderate or greater AI, necessitating more frequent AV interventions (ART: 5 AV interventions [3 surgical repairs, 1 surgical replacement, 1 transcatheter replacement; 26.3%]; no-ART: 0).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 10% of HM3 patients developed ART during device support. ART was associated with increased risk of a composite end-point of death, stroke, or AV intervention as well as moderate or greater AI.

Noninvasive neurological monitoring to enhance pLVAD-assisted ventricular tachycardia ablation - a Mini review

For critically ill patients, hemodynamic fluctuations can be life-threatening; this is particularly true for patients experiencing cardiac comorbidities. Patients may suffer from problems with heart contractility and rate, vascular tone, and intravascular volume, resulting in hemodynamic instability. Unsurprisingly, hemodynamic support provides a crucial and specific benefit during percutaneous ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT). Mapping, understanding, and treating the arrhythmia during sustained VT without hemodynamic support is often infeasible due to patient hemodynamic collapse. Substrate mapping in sinus rhythm can be successful for VT ablation, but there are limitations to this approach. Patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy may present for ablation without exhibiting useful endocardial and/or epicardial substrate-based ablation targets, either due to diffuse extent or a lack of identifiable substrate. This leaves activation mapping during ongoing VT as the only viable diagnostic strategy. By enhancing cardiac output, percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD) may facilitate conditions for mapping that would otherwise be incompatible with survival. However, the optimal mean arterial pressure to maintain end-organ perfusion in presence of nonpulsatile flow remains unknown. Near infrared oxygenation monitoring during pLVAD support provides assessment of critical end-organ perfusion during VT, enabling successful mapping and ablation with the continual assurance of adequate brain oxygenation. This focused review provides practical use case scenarios for such an approach, which aims to allow mapping and ablation of ongoing VT while drastically reducing the risk of ischemic brain injury.

Surgical Interventions for Late Aortic Valve Regurgitation Associated with Continuous Flow-Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: Experience Gained and Lessons Learned

This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of surgical interventions for symptomatic moderate-to-severe aortic regurgitation (AR), including aortic valve replacement (AVR) and repair (AVP), in 184 patients who underwent continuous flow-left ventricular assist device (Cf-LVAD) implantation as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT) between November 2007 and April 2020. Ten patients (median age, 34 (25-41) years; 60% men) underwent surgical interventions (AVR, n = 6; AVP, n = 4) late after cf-LVAD implantation. The median duration after the device implantation was 34 (24-44) months. Three patients required additional tricuspid valve repair. Aortic valve suturing resulted in severe recurrent AR 6 months postoperatively, due to leaflet cutting in one patient. Seven patients with AVR survived without regurgitation during the study period, except for one non-survivor complicated by liver failure due to postoperative right heart failure. Therefore, six patients after AVP (n = 4) and AVR (n = 2) underwent successful heart transplantation 7 (4-13) months after aortic intervention. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in overall survival through 5 years after cf-LVAD implantation, regardless of the surgical AV intervention chosen (log-rank test, p = 0.86). In conclusion, surgical interventions (AVR or AVP) for patients with an ongoing cf-LVAD are safe, effective, and viable options.

Concomitant or late aortic valve intervention and its efficacy for aortic insufficiency associated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation

Moderate to severe aortic insufficiency (AI) in patients who underwent continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation is a significant complication. According to the INTERMACS registry analysis, at least mild AI occurs in 55% of patients at 6 months after CF-LVAD implantation and moderate to severe AI is significantly associated with higher rates of re-hospitalization and mortality. The clinical implications of these data may underscore consideration of prophylactic aortic valve replacement, or repair, at the time of CF-LVAD implantation, particularly with expected longer duration of support and in patients with preexisting AI that is more than mild. More crucially, even if a native aortic valve is seemingly competent at the time of VAD implantation, we frequently find de novo AI as time goes by, potentially due to commissural fusion in the setting of inconsistent aortic valve opening or persistent valve closure caused by CF-LVAD support, that alters morphological and functional properties of innately competent aortic valves. Therefore, close monitoring of AI is mandatory, as the prognostic nature of its longitudinal progression is still unclear. Clearly, significant AI during VAD support warrants surgical intervention at the appropriate timing, especially in patients of destination therapy. Nonetheless, such an uncertainty in the progression of AI translates to a lack of consensus regarding the management of this untoward complication. In practice, proposed surgical options are aortic valve replacement, repair, closure, and more recently transcatheter aortic valve implantation or closure. Transcatheter approach is of course less invasive, however, its efficacy in terms of long-term outcome is limited. In this review, we summarize the recent evidence related to the pathophysiology and surgical treatment of AI associated with CF-LVAD implantation.

A computational study of aortic insufficiency in patients supported with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: Is it time for a paradigm shift in management?

BACKGROUND

De novo aortic insufficiency (AI) following continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation is a common complication. Traditional early management utilizes speed augmentation to overcome the regurgitant flow in an attempt to augment net forward flow, but this strategy increases the aortic transvalvular gradient which predisposes the patient to progressive aortic valve pathology and may have deleterious effects on aortic shear stress and right ventricular (RV) function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We employed a closed-loop lumped-parameter mathematical model of the cardiovascular system including the four cardiac chambers with corresponding valves, pulmonary and systemic circulations, and the LVAD. The model is used to generate boundary conditions which are prescribed in blood flow simulations performed in a three-dimensional (3D) model of the ascending aorta, aortic arch, and thoracic descending aorta. Using the models, impact of various patient management strategies, including speed augmentation and pharmacological treatment on systemic and pulmonary (PA) vasculature, were investigated for four typical phenotypes of LVAD patients with varying degrees of RV to PA coupling and AI severity.

RESULTS

The introduction of mild/moderate or severe AI to the coupled RV and pulmonary artery at a speed of 5,500 RPM led to a reduction in net flow from 5.4 L/min (no AI) to 4.5 L/min (mild/moderate) to 2.1 L/min (severe). RV coupling ratio (Ees/Ea) decreased from 1.01 (no AI) to 0.96 (mild/moderate) to 0.76 (severe). Increasing LVAD speed to 6,400 RPM in the severe AI and coupled scenario, led to a 42% increase in net flow and a 16% increase in regurgitant flow (RF) with a nominal decrease of 1.6% in RV myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2). Blood pressure control with the coupled RV with severe AI at 5,500 RPM led to an 81% increase in net flow with a 15% reduction of RF and an 8% reduction in RV MVO2. With an uncoupled RV, the introduction of mild/moderate or severe AI at a speed of 5,500 RPM led to a reduction in net flow from 5.0 L/min (no AI) to 4.0 L/min (mild/moderate) to 1.8 L/min (severe). Increasing the speed to 6,400 RPM with severe AI and an uncoupled RV increased net flow by 45%, RF by 15% and reduced RV MVO2 by 1.1%. For the uncoupled RV with severe AI, blood pressure control alone led to a 22% increase in net flow, 4.2% reduction in RF, and 3.9% reduction in RV MVO2; pulmonary vasodilation alone led to a 18% increase in net flow, 7% reduction in RF, and 26% reduction in RV MVO2; whereas, combined BP control and pulmonary vasodilation led to a 113% increase in net flow, 20% reduction in RF and 31% reduction in RV MVO2. Compared to speed augmentation, blood pressure control consistently resulted in a reduction in WSS throughout the proximal regions of the arterial system.

CONCLUSION

Speed augmentation to overcome AI in patients supported by CF-LVAD appears to augment flow but also increases RF and WSS in the aorta, and reduces RV MVO2. Aggressive blood pressure control and pulmonary vasodilation, particularly in those patients with an uncoupled RV can improve net flow with more advantageous effects on the RV and AI RF.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients with Aortic Insufficiency

Background: Worsening aortic insufficiency (AI) is a known sequela of prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with a significant impact on patient outcomes. While medical treatment may relieve symptoms, it is unlikely to halt progression. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are among non-medical interventions available to address post-LVAD AI. Limited data are available on outcomes with either SAVR or TAVR for the management of post-LVAD AI. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample data collected for hospital admissions between the years 2015 and 2018 for patients with pre-existing continuous-flow LVAD undergoing TAVR or SAVR for AI were queried. The primary outcome of interest was a composite of in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischaemic attack, MI, pacemaker implantation, need for open aortic valve surgery, vascular complications and cardiac tamponade. Results: Patients undergoing TAVR were more likely to receive their procedure during an elective admission (57.1 versus 30%, p=0.002), and a significantly higher prevalence of comorbidities, as assessed by the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, was observed in the SAVR group (29 versus 18; p=0.0001). We observed a significantly higher prevalence of the primary composite outcome in patients undergoing SAVR (30%) compared with TAVR (14.3%; p=0.001). Upon multivariable analysis adjusting for the type of admission and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio 0.243; 95% CI [0.06-0.97]; p=0.045). Conclusion: In this nationally representative cohort of LVAD patients with post-implant AI, it was observed that TAVR was associated with a lower risk of adverse short-term outcomes compared with SAVR.

Restructuring the Heart From Failure to Success: Role of Structural Interventions in the Realm of Heart Failure

Heart failure through the spectrum of reduced (HFrEF), mid-range (or mildly reduced or HFmEF), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), continues to plague patients' quality of life through recurrent admissions and high mortality rates. Despite tremendous innovation in medical therapy, patients continue to experience refractory congestive symptoms due to adverse left ventricular remodeling, significant functional mitral regurgitation (FMR), and right-sided failure symptoms due to significant functional tricuspid regurgitation (FTR). As most of these patients are surgically challenging for open cardiac surgery, the past decade has seen the development and evolution of different percutaneous structural interventions targeted at improving FMR and FTR. There is renewed interest in the sphere of left ventricular restorative devices to effect reverse remodeling and thereby improve effective stroke volume and patient outcomes. For patients suffering from HFpEF, there is still a paucity of disease-modifying effective medical therapies, and these patients continue to have recurrent heart failure exacerbations due to impaired left ventricular relaxation and high filling pressures. Structural therapies involving the implantation of inter-atrial shunt devices to decrease left atrial pressure and the development of implantable devices in the pulmonary artery for real-time hemodynamic monitoring would help redefine treatment and outcomes for patients with HFpEF. Lastly, there is pre-clinical data supportive of soft robotic cardiac sleeves that serve to improve cardiac function, can assist contraction as well as relaxation of the heart, and have the potential to be customized for each patient. In this review, we focus on the role of structural interventions in heart failure as it stands in current clinical practice, evaluate the evidence amassed so far, and review promising structural therapies that may transform the future of heart failure management.

Factors influencing the functional status of aortic valve in ovine models supported by continuous-flow left ventricular assist device

Objectives

An acute animal experiment was performed to observe factors influencing the functional status of the aortic valve functional status after continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device (CF‐LVAD) implantation in an ovine model, and a physiologic predictive model was established.

Methods

A CF‐LVAD model was established in Small Tail Han sheep. The initial heart rate (HR) was set to 60 beats/min, and grouping was performed at an interval of 20 beats/min. In all groups, the pump speed was started from 2000 rpm and was gradually increased by 50–100 rpm. A multi‐channel physiological recorder recorded the HR, aortic pressure, central venous pressure, and left ventricular systolic pressure (LVSP). A double‐channel ultrasonic flowmeter was used to obtain real‐time artificial vascular blood flow (ABF). A color Doppler ultrasound device was applied to assess the aortic valve functional status. Multivariate dichotomous logistic regression was used to screen significant variables for predicting the functional status of the aortic valve.

Results

Observational studies showed that ABF and the risk of aortic valve closure (AVC) were positively correlated with pump speed at the same HR. Meanwhile, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) was unaltered or slightly increased with increased pump speed. When the pump speed was constant, an increase in HR was associated with a decrease in the size of the aortic valve opening. This phenomenon was accompanied by an initial transient increase in the ABF and MAP, which subsequently decreased. Statistical analysis showed that the AVC was associated with increased pump speed (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01–1.04, p = 0.001), decreased LVSP (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.91–0.98, p = 0.003), and decreased pulse pressure (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68–0.96, p = 0.026). ABF or MAP was negatively associated with the risk of AVC (OR < 1). The prediction model of AVC after CF‐LVAD implantation exhibited good differentiation (AUC = 0.973, 95% CI = 0.978–0.995) and calibration performance (Hosmer–Lemeshow χ² = 9.834, p = 0.277 > 0.05).

Conclusions

The pump speed, LVSP, ABF, MAP, and pulse pressure are significant predictors of the risk of AVC. Predictive models built from these predictors yielded good performance in differentiating aortic valve opening and closure after CF‐LVAD implantation.

Left Ventricular Assist Device: Indication, Timing, and Management

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are indicated in inotrope-dependent heart failure (HF) patients with pure or predominant LV dysfunction. Survival benefit is less clear in ambulatory, advanced HF. Timing is crucial: early, unnecessary exposure to the risks of surgery, and device-related complications (infections, stroke, and bleeding) should be weighed against the probability of dying or developing irreversible right ventricular and/or end-organ dysfunction while deferring implant. The interplay between LVAD and heart transplantation depends largely on donor availability and allocation rules. Postoperatively, quality of life depends on patients' expectations and is influenced by complications. Patients' preferences, prognosis, and alternative options-including palliation-should be openly discussed and reviewed before and after the operation.

Secondary aortic valve replacement in continuous flow left ventricular assist device therapy

The purpose of the study was to investigate the outcome of secondary surgical aortic valve replacement (sSAVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) in the context of ventricular assist device (VAD) therapy. From 2009 to 2020, 792 patients underwent cf-LVAD implantation [HVAD (Medtronic, USA), n = 585, and HM 3 (Abbott, USA), n = 207]. All cf-LVAD patients with severe AR requiring secondary AVR were enrolled in this study. A total of six patients (median, 40 years, IQR; 34-61 years, 50% male) underwent secondary surgical aortic valve replacement (sSAVR) after cf-LVAD implantation. Median time of previous LVAD support was 26 months (IQR: 21-29 months). Two patients required additional tricuspid valve repair (TVR) and one patient underwent SAVR after failed TAVR. Four patients needed temporary right ventricular assist device (RVAD) with a median of 30 days (IQR; 29-33 days). Three patients were bridged to urgent heart transplantation due to persevering right heart failure, whereas two destination therapy (DT) candidates survived without any associated complications. An additional DT patient died of pneumonia 1 month after sSAVR. Secondary surgical aortic valve replacement in ongoing LVAD patients is an advanced procedure for a complex cohort. In our series, sSAVR was safely performed and effective, but involved a high-risk for subsequent right heart failure, requiring urgent heart transplantation. In LVAD patients with severe AR requiring treatment where TAVR is not feasible, sSAVR can be evaluated as salvage option for bridge to transplant patients or selected destination therapy candidates.

Implication of Hemodynamic Assessment during Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device Support

Durable left ventricular assist device therapy has improved survival in patients with advanced heart failure refractory to conventional medical therapy, although the readmission rates due to device-related comorbidities remain high. Left ventricular assist devices are designed to support a failing left ventricle through relief of congestion and improvement of cardiac output. However, many patients still have abnormal hemodynamics even though they may appear to be clinically stable. Furthermore, such abnormal hemodynamics are associated with an increased risk of future adverse events including recurrent heart failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, stroke, and pump thrombosis. Correction of residual hemodynamic derangements post-implantation may be a target in improving longitudinal clinical outcomes during left ventricular assist device support. Automatic and timely device speed adjustments considering a patients' hemodynamic status (i.e., with a smart pump) are potential improvements in forthcoming devices.