Complex HeartMate II Infection Treated with Pump Exchange to HeartWare HVAD

Ventricular Assist Device Driveline Infections: A Systematic Review

Infection is the most common complication in patients undergoing ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation. Driveline exit site (DLES) infection is the most frequent VAD infection and is a significant cause of adverse events in VAD patients, contributing to morbidity, even mortality, and repetitive hospital readmissions. There are many risk factors for driveline infection (DLI) including younger age, smaller constitution of patients, obesity, exposed velour at the DLES, longer duration of device support, lower cardiac index, higher heart failure score, DLES trauma, and comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and depression. The incidence of DLI depends also on the device type. Numerous measures to prevent DLI currently exist. Some of them are proven, whereas the others remain controversial. Current recommendations on DLES care and DLI management are predominantly based on expert consensus and clinical experience of the certain centers. However, careful and uniform DLES care including obligatory driveline immobilization, previously prepared sterile dressing change kits, and continuous patient education are probably crucial for prevention of DLI. Diagnosis and treatment of DLI are often challenging because of certain immunological alterations in VAD patients and microbial biofilm formation on the driveline surface areas. Although there are many conservative and surgical methods described in the DLI treatment, the only possible permanent solution for DLI resolution in VAD patients is heart transplantation. This systematic review brings a comprehensive synthesis of recent data on the prevention, diagnostic workup, and conservative and surgical management of DLI in VAD patients.

Outcomes Following Left Ventricular Assist Device Exchange: Focus on the Impacts of Device Infection

Hemodynamic support with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) therapy has proven a reliable treatment for advanced heart failure. Although modern LVADs are highly durable, device failure and infection can be resolved with surgical exchange of pump components. In this study, we investigated the incidence and outcomes of LVAD exchange with the HeartMate II and HeartWare HVAD. Data were obtained from 677 patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between 2005 and 2016. Patients who underwent a device exchanged were included. The primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and mortality. Of the 677 patients included in this study, 72 (10.6%) required LVAD exchange. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality rates were comparable to primary LVAD implantation: 4.3% vs. 3.49%, p = 0.727 and 20.3% vs. 20.7%, p = 0.989, respectively. Thirty-one patients (4.5%) underwent exchange with ongoing infection. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated significant differences in survival between groups based on indication for exchange. Patients who underwent exchange after more than 150 days of active infection suffered worse postexchange survival than those who underwent exchanged earlier (P = 0.007). While exchange was required only in 10.6% of patients undergoing LVAD implantation, our results show device exchange may be executed safely and effectively, with long-term outcomes similar to primary LVAD implantation. The indication for device exchange impacts postexchange outcomes, and those exchanged with LVAD infection tend to fare worse than those exchanged for device malfunction or thrombus. Patients who are exchanged with active infection have better postoperative survival if the exchange is performed expeditiously after medical management has failed.

Complex HeartWare left ventricular assist device infection treated with pump exchange: clinical alert for the driveline location

Infection is a major complication in patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Once a driveline exit-site infection (DLI) reaches the LVAD component, LVAD exchange may become necessary for radical treatment, although clinical results are not satisfactory. In this report, we describe two cases of LVAD infection successfully treated with pump exchange. During LVAD support, the DLI extended into the pump pocket and the outflow graft despite aggressive surgical debridement and negative pressure wound therapy. These two patients required LVAD exchange for radical treatment, because the estimated waiting period for heart transplantation was at least more than 1 year. The LVAD exchange was performed through median re-sternotomy, and the infected HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) was completely removed under cardiopulmonary bypass. Then, a new LVAD covered with the omentum flap was implanted. These two patients were successfully bridged to heart transplantation after 10 months and 2 years of support without recurrence of infection. These two cases may suggest that the driveline of the HVAD needs to be kept away from the outflow graft to prevent refractory outflow graft infection.

Device exchange from Heartmate II to HeartWare HVAD

BACKGROUND

Despite technological advancements, pump durability and pump-related complications continue to affect and adversely impact the lives of patients with end-stage heart failure on left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. In an attempt to avoid recurrent LVAD-related complications, there may be circumstances where it is clinically advantageous to exchange a patient's device from HeartMate II to HeartWare HVAD. However, there is a paucity of data that describes the safety and feasibility of such an approach.

OBJECTIVE

We present the largest single-center series of HeartMate II (HMII) to HeartWare (HVAD) device exchanges.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 11 patients who underwent HMII to HVAD exchange from 2012 to 2017 was conducted to evaluate patient characteristics, incidence of postoperative complications, and survival.

RESULTS

Eleven male patients (mean age 55 ± 14.4 years) underwent HMII to HVAD device exchange. One patient expired on postoperative day 7 secondary to sepsis. One patient was lost-to-follow-up after 23 months. An additional three patients died at 5, 7, and 24 months. Mean follow-up after device exchange was 1555 ± 311 days for the remaining six patients. None of the 11 study patients underwent LVAD explant, further device exchange, or heart transplant.

CONCLUSION

Exchange of an HMII LVAD to an HVAD can be performed safely with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Clinical Experience of HeartMate II to HeartWare Left Ventricular Assist Device Exchange: A Multicenter Experience

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in pump design and durability, left ventricular assist device patients still suffer from life-threatening complications such as pump thrombosis (PT) and infection, often necessitating device exchange. Surgical exchange from HeartMate II (HM2; Abbott, Pleasanton, CA) to another HM2 is safe and associated with low mortality, but recurrent device thrombosis rates are high. Switching from axial-flow to centrifugal-flow pump, such as the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD; Medtronic, Framingham, MA) may offer certain advantages due to it being a smaller, newer generation device, although there are limited data to support this strategy. Herein, we aimed to assess the surgical approach and feasibility, safety, and outcomes of surgical exchange from HM2 to HVAD.

METHODS

We evaluated HM2 patients who underwent device exchange to HVAD due to PT or infection at 4 large-volume left ventricular assist device implant centers.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent HM2 to HVAD exchange due to PT (92%) and refractory infection (8%). Patients were male (75%), white (88%), with ischemic cardiomyopathy (54%), Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) scale level 1-3 (90%), and destination therapy (62%). The majority underwent redo-sternotomy (79%) and the remainder underwent minimally invasive thoracotomy with subcostal approach. The existing HM2 outflow graft was maintained in 79% of cases. Recurrent PT was noted in 9% of patients. Mortality was 8% at 30 days and 33% at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical exchange from a HM2 to HVAD is safe and feasible, despite the differences in device specifications and surgical adaptation required. Newer-generation pumps are increasingly considered for exchange in the setting of HM2 device complication, and increasing experience with modified surgical approaches may be valuable in the current era.

Ventricular assist device-related infections and solid organ transplantation-Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

The Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation has published evidenced-based guidelines on the prevention and management of infectious complications in SOT recipients since 2004. This updated guideline reviews the epidemiology of ventricular assist device (VAD) infections and provides recommendations for the management and prevention of these infections. Almost one half of those awaiting heart transplantation are supported with VADs. Despite advances in device technologies, VAD infections commonly complicate mechanical circulatory support and remain typified by common components and anatomic locations. These infections have important implications for transplant candidates, most notably increased wait-list mortality. Strategic management of these infections is crucial for successful transplantation. Coincidentally, explantation of all VAD components at the time of transplantation is often the definitive cure for the device-associated infection. Highlighted in this updated guideline is the reported success of transplantation in patients with a variety of pre-existing VAD infections and guidance on post-transplant management strategies.

Axial to Centrifugal Continuous Flow LVAD Pump Exchange Using Minimally Invasive Technique

Driveline or device infection may complicate left ventricular assist device implants, and only curative option may be pump exchange. Replacement with similar device may be liable to reinfection, because pump configuration is such that the new device and driveline may partly lie within the pocket of the previous pump. One approach to overcome this is using a different pump design such that the new pump would lie in a different location from the old pump. We describe treatment of severe HeartMate II (Abbott, [St Jude Thoratec Corp], Pleasanton, CA USA) left ventricular assist device infection by minimally invasive exchange to an intrapericardial HVAD (HeartWare International, Inc, Framingham, MA USA) left ventricular assist device.

A successful management of infection of the left ventricular assist device by pump exchange: conversion from DuraHeart to Jarvik 2000

We successfully controlled infection of a left ventricular assist device by performing pump exchange. A 53-year-old man was implanted with DuraHeart for ischemic cardiomyopathy as a bridge to transplantation. Two years later, he was hospitalized with the diagnosis of driveline infection. The blood cultures detected Pseudomonas aeruginosa. During the admission, he developed brain hemorrhage perhaps due to septic emboli. The chest computed tomography scan revealed a small defect inside the outflow graft of the DuraHeart, which was highly suspected of vegetation. He underwent pump exchange, from DuraHeart to Jarvik 2000 with concomitant omentopexy. His postoperative course was uneventful, and he was discharged with no sequela of the brain hemorrhage. Four months after the pump exchange, he successfully underwent heart transplantation. No infectious tissue was observed in the pericardial space at the time of heart transplantation. Pump exchange is an effective way to manage refractory left ventricular assist device infection, and the timing of surgical intervention is of great importance.

Readmission due to driveline infection can be predicted by new score by using serum albumin and body mass index during long-term left ventricular assist device support

Survival in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist device (CF LVAD) had been increased owing to improved perioperative management procedures. The second target for successful long-term LVAD treatment was to reduce readmission especially due to device-specific infection, which was one of the major unsolved complications. Among 57 enrolled patients who had received CF LVAD and been followed for 530 days on median at our institute between 2008 and 2014, 21 patients experienced readmission due to driveline infection (DLI) at 190 days after the surgery on median. Considering the result of Uni/Multivariate Cox regression analyses demonstrating lower serum albumin concentration (S-ALB) (hazard ratio 0.144) and body mass index (BMI) (hazard ratio 0.843) both obtained at discharge were independent predictors of readmission due to DLI, we constructed a New Score "7 × [S-ALB (g/dL)] + [BMI]", which significantly stratified readmission-free rate into 3 groups [low (>50 Pt), intermediate (44-50 Pt), and high risk group (<44 Pt)] during 2-year study period (p = 0.008). Survival remained unchanged irrespective of DLI, whereas those with DLI needed longer in-hospital treatment (p < 0.05). In conclusion, readmission due to DLI could be predicted by using two simple nutrition parameters at discharge. Early nutrition assessment and intervention may reduce readmission and improve patients' quality of life during long-term LVAD support.

[Noncardiological surgical procedure for patients implanted with a ventricular assist device. Anesthesiological management concepts]

BACKGROUND

The implantation of a ventricular assist device (VAD) is more frequently used as destination therapy of end-stage heart failure compared to the use of the device as bridge-to-transplantation, this results in an increasing number of noncardiac surgical procedures for patients implanted with a VAD.

OBJECTIVE

For these procedures, the anesthesia provider faces various device-related complications, such as an increased risk for bleeding complications, thromboembolism, hypotension, infections, mechanical device limitations, and right heart failure. Anesthesia care is challenging in this high-risk patient population and has significant implications on patient outcome.

CONCLUSION

More research is needed to determine specific guidelines for the anesthesiological management of VAD patients undergoing noncardiac surgical procedures. In this manuscript, device-related perioperative complications and concepts of anesthesia care for noncardiac procedures in patients implanted with a VAD are briefly reviewed.

Implantation of the continuous flow HeartWare® left ventricular assist device

Recent outstanding clinical advances with new mechanical circulatory systems have led to additional strategies in the treatment of end-stage heart failure. Heart transplantation can be postponed and for certain patients even replaced by smaller implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Mechanical support of the failing left ventricle enables appropriate haemodynamic stabilization and recovery of secondary organ failure, often seen in these severely ill patients. These new devices may be of great help to bridge patients until a suitable cardiac allograft is available but are also discussed as definitive treatment for patients who do not qualify for transplantation. Main indications for LVAD implantation are bridge to recovery, bridge to transplantation or destination therapy. An LVAD may be an important tool for patients with an expected prolonged period on the waiting list, for instance those with blood group O or B, with high or low body weight and those with potentially reversible secondary organ failure and pulmonary artery hypertension. However, LVAD implantation means an additional heart operation with inherent perioperative risks and complications during the waiting period. Finally, cardiac transplantation in patients with prior implantation of an LVAD represents a surgical challenge. The care of patients after the implantation of miniaturized LVADs, such as the HeartWare® system, seems to be easier than following pulsatile devices. The explantation of such devices at the time of transplantation is technically more comfortable than after HeartMate II implantation.