Impact of concomitant cardiac valvular surgery during implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: A European registry for patients with mechanical circulatory support (EUROMACS) analysis

Concurrent valvular procedures during left ventricular assist device implantation and outcomes: A comprehensive analysis of the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3 trial portfolio

BACKGROUND

Correction of valvular disease is often undertaken during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with uncertain benefit. We analyzed clinical outcomes with HeartMate 3 (HM3; Abbott) LVAD implantation in those with various concurrent valve procedures (HM3+VP) with those with an isolated LVAD implant (HM3 alone).

METHODS

The study included 2200 patients with HM3 implanted within the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM 3) trial portfolio who underwent 820 concurrent procedures among which 466 (21.8%) were HM3+VP. VPs included 101 aortic, 61 mitral, 163 tricuspid; 85 patients had multiple VPs. Perioperative complications, major adverse events, and survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent HM3+VP had higher-acuity Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profiles (1-2: 41% vs 31%) compared with no VPs (P < .05). The cardiopulmonary bypass time (124 vs 76 minutes; P < .0001) and hospital length of stay (20 vs 18 days; P < .0001) were longer in HM3+VP. A higher incidence of stroke (4.9% vs 2.4%), bleeding (33.9% vs 23.8%), and right heart failure (41.5% vs 29.6%) was noted in HM3+VP at 0 to 30 days (P < .01), with no difference in 30-day mortality (3.9% vs 3.3%) or 2-year survival (81.7% vs 80.8%). Analysis of individual VP showed no differences in survival compared to HM3 alone. No differences were noted among patients with either significant mitral (moderate or worse) or tricuspid (moderate or worse) regurgitation with or without corrective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent VPs, commonly performed during LVAD implantation, are associated with increased morbidity during the index hospitalization, with no effect on short- and long-term survival. There is sufficient equipoise to consider a randomized trial on the benefit of commonly performed VPs (such as mitral or tricuspid regurgitation correction), during LVAD implantation.

Managing valvular pathology during LVAD implantation

Since the time of their invention, implantable continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have improved the quality of life and extended survival for patients with advanced heart failure. The decision surgeons and their physician colleagues make with these patients to undergo implantation must come with full understanding of the immediate, short-term, and long-term implications of such a life-changing procedure. The presence of pathology regarding the aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valves introduces particularly complex problems for the surgical treatment strategy. Concomitant valve repair or replacement increases cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times, and could potentially lead to worse outcomes in the perioperative setting. Following perioperative recovery, valvular pathology may worsen or arise de novo given the often drastic immediate physiologic changes in blood flow, septal function, and, over time, ventricular remodeling. Over the past two decades, there has been vast improvement in the device manufacturing, surgical techniques, and medical management surrounding LVAD implantation. Yet, addressing concomitant valvular pathology remains a complex question with no perfect solutions. This review aims to briefly describe the evolution of approach to valvular pathology in the LVAD patient and offer our opinion and treatment rationale.

Outcomes of concomitant aortic valve procedures and left ventricular assist device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is frequently employed in patients with end-stage heart failure. The outcomes of addressing the repair of all substantial aortic valvular disease at the time of LVAD implantation remain unclear. We sought to assess the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation concomitant with aortic valve procedures (AVPs) compared with isolated LVAD implantation.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library from inception till June 2022. Primary outcomes included short-term mortality and long-term survival. Random effects models were used to compute mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 14 observational studies (N = 52 693) met our inclusion criteria. Concomitant LVAD implantation and AVPs were associated with higher short-term mortality (OR = 1.61 [95% CI, 1.06-2.42]; p = 0.02) and mean CPBt (MD = 43.25 [95% CI, 22.95-63.56]; p < 0.0001), and reduced long-term survival (OR = 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.88]; p = 0.003) compared with isolated LVAD implantation. No difference in the odds of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 1.05 [95% CI, 0.79-1.39]; p = 0.74) and mean length of hospital stay (MD = 2.89 [95% CI, -4.04 to 9.82]; p = 0.41) was observed between the two groups. On adjusted analysis, short-term mortality was significantly higher in the LVAD group with concurrent AVPs when compared with the isolated LVAD group (aHR = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.20-1.87]; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent AVPs were associated with higher short-term mortality and reduced long-term survival in patients undergoing LVAD implantation compared with isolated LVAD implantation.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2022

This special article is the 15th in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief Dr. Kaplan and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series, namely the research highlights of the past year in the specialties of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesiology. The major themes selected for 2022 are outlined in this introduction, and each highlight is reviewed in detail in the main body of the article. The literature highlights, in the specialties for 2022, begin with an update on COVID-19 therapies, with a focus on the temporal updates in a wide range of therapies, progressing from medical to the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and, ultimately, with lung transplantation in this high-risk group. The second major theme is focused on medical cardiology, with the authors discussing new insights into the life cycle of coronary disease, heart failure treatments, and outcomes related to novel statin therapy. The third theme is focused on mechanical circulatory support, with discussions focusing on both right-sided and left-sided temporary support outcomes and the optimal timing of deployment. The fourth and final theme is an update on cardiac surgery, with a discussion of the diverse aspects of concomitant valvular surgery and the optimal approach to procedural treatment for coronary artery disease. The themes selected for this 15th special article are only a few of the diverse advances in the specialties during 2022. These highlights will inform the reader of key updates on a variety of topics, leading to the improvement of perioperative outcomes for patients with cardiothoracic and vascular disease.