HeartMate II pump exchange with HeartMate III implantation to the descending aorta

Left ventricular assist device exchange from HeartMate II to HeartMate 3 in an Asian patient-a case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Pump exchange surgery of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has been demonstrated in several studies; however, information for Asian patients was limited.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 63-year-old man underwent a pump upgrade from HeartMate II to HeartMate 3 for driveline damage through limited left anterior thoracotomy and lower partial sternotomy. He did not experience any hemodynamic adverse events or device malfunction during postoperative follow-ups of 12 months. We also reviewed all published cases with HeartMate II exchange to HeartMate 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The case demonstrated that it was safe and feasible to perform HMII LVAD exchange to HM3 through a limited approach for Asian patients.

Early outcomes with durable left ventricular assist device replacement using the HeartMate 3

BACKGROUND

The HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (Abbott, Inc, Chicago, Ill) is a fully magnetically levitated centrifugal implantable pump used to treat patients with chronic heart failure. The MOMENTUM (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy With HeartMate 3) trial demonstrated that patients treated with the HM3 experienced reduced need for reoperation for LVAD replacement compared with a control group receiving an axial flow design, Heartmate II (Abbott, Inc). However, there are few reports of using HM3 as the replacement pump in patients who already are supported by a durable LVAD and experience a device-related complication necessitating replacement.

METHODS

An institutional LVAD database was used to identify 19 consecutive patients who underwent pump replacement to HM3 (group 1) versus 85 consecutive control patients who underwent pump replacement to either Heartmate II or HeartWare Ventricular Assist Device (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) (group 2), at a single institution from January 2010 to August 2018. Patient baseline characteristic and outcomes were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. The primary endpoint was a composite of freedom from death or need for another replacement surgery.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the groups in heart failure etiology, indication for replacement, as well as the average days on the previous pump or the type of previous pump. The HM3 group did have a significantly greater body mass index (37 vs 31.6 P = .01), a greater number of previous LVAD implants (36.8% vs 5.9%, had 2 previous LVADs, P < .001), and a greater number of previous sternotomies (31.6% vs 7.1%, had 3 previous sternotomies, P = .001). No difference was found between the groups in terms of postoperative adverse event rates. With regards to the primary endpoint, the patients with HM3 replacements (group 1) versus group 2 experienced significantly greater freedom from either death or need for another replacement during the follow-up period (P = .039). During follow-up, there were no thrombosis events for the patients who received replacement with HM3.

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD replacement with HM3 can be performed safely and may be considered as the pump of choice in patients requiring LVAD replacement.