Outcomes in patients who underwent a concomitant tricuspid valve procedure during left ventricular assist device implantation

Concomitant tricuspid valve surgery in patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a predictor of right heart failure (RHF) and increased mortality following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, however the benefit of tricuspid valve surgery (TVS) at the time of LVAD implantation remains unclear. This study compares early and late mortality and RHF outcomes in patients with significant TR undergoing LVAD implantation with and without concomitant TVS.

METHODS

A systematic search of four electronic databases was conducted for studies comparing patients with moderate or severe TR undergoing LVAD implantation with or without concomitant TVS. Meta-analysis was performed for primary outcomes of early and late mortality and RHF. Secondary outcomes included rate of stroke, renal failure, hospital and ICU length of stay. An overall survival curve was constructed using aggregated, reconstructed individual patient data from Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves.

RESULTS

Nine studies included 575 patients that underwent isolated LVAD and 308 patients whom received concomitant TVS. Both groups had similar rates of severe TR (46.5% vs. 45.6%). There was no significant difference seen in risk of early mortality (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57-1.42; p = 0.64; I2 = 0%) or early RHF (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66-1.19; p = 0.41; I2 = 57) and late outcomes remained comparable between both groups. The aggregated KM curve showed isolated LVAD to be associated with overall increased survival (HR 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93; p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

Undergoing concomitant TVS did not display increased benefit in terms of early or late mortality and RHF in patients with preoperative significant TR. Further data to evaluate the benefit of concomitant TVS stratified by TR severity or by other predictors of RHF will be beneficial.

Concomitant tricuspid valve surgery in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to investigate the effect of concomitant tricuspid valve surgery (TVS) during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation due to the controversy over the clinical outcomes of concomitant TVS in patients undergoing LVAD.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and EMbase from the inception to 1 August 2023. Studies comparing outcomes in adult patients undergoing concomitant TVS during LVAD implantation (TVS group) and those who did not (no-TVS group) were included. The primary outcomes were right heart failure (RHF), right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation, and early mortality. All meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models, and a two-tailed P <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were included, and 16 of them were involved in the meta-analysis, with 660 patients in the TVS group and 1291 in the no-TVS group. Patients in the TVS group suffered from increased risks of RHF [risk ratios (RR)=1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70, P =0.04; I2 =38%, pH =0.13), RVAD implantation (RR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.11, P =0.003; I2 =0%, pH =0.74), and early mortality (RR=1.61, 95% CI: 1.07-2.42, P =0.02; I2 =0%, pH =0.75). Besides, the increased risk of RHF holds true in patients with moderate to severe tricuspid regurgitation (RR=1.36, 95% CI: 1.04-1.78, P =0.02). TVS was associated with a prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass time. No significant differences in acute kidney injury, reoperation requirement, hospital length of stay, or ICU stay were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant TVS failed to show benefits in patients undergoing LVAD, and it was associated with increased risks of RHF, RVAD implantation, and early mortality.

Special Considerations for Advanced Heart Failure Surgeries: Durable Left Ventricular Devices and Heart Transplantation

Heart transplantation and durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) represent two definitive therapies for end-stage heart failure in the modern era. Despite technological advances, both treatment modalities continue to experience unique risks that impact surgical and perioperative decision-making. Here, we review special populations and factors that impact risk in LVAD and heart transplant surgery and examine critical decisions in the management of these patients. As both heart transplantation and the use of durable LVADs as destination therapy continue to increase, these considerations will be of increasing relevance in managing advanced heart failure and improving outcomes.

Does concomitant tricuspid valve intervention at the time of left ventricular assist device placement for patients with significant tricuspid regurgitation lead to improved outcomes compared to isolated left ventricular assist device placement?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'In patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and moderate to severe functional tricuspid regurgitation (TR) undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement is concomitant tricuspid valve intervention (TVI) superior for the clinical outcomes of survival, right ventricular failure, rehospitalizations for HF, functional status, and quality of life?' Altogether, 56 papers were found using the reported search, of which 12 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date, country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Our search found no significant clinical benefit for concomitant TVI at the time of LVAD placement. We conclude that patient with moderate-to-severe TR should not routinely undergo concomitant TVI with LVAD placement.

Should we touch tricuspid valve at the time of LVAD implantation? A young patient series

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to compare the results of patients who had moderate or severe tricuspid insufficiency (TI) at the time of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation that did not undergo intervention.

METHODS

Between October 2013 and December 2019, 144 patients who did not undergo tricuspid valve repair (TVR) during LVAD implantation in our department were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to the TI grade; Group 1: 106 patients (73.6%) with moderate TI and Group 2: 38 patients (26.4%) with severe TI. All patients were evaluated for mortality, need of inotrope, blood product transfusion, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and early and late right ventricular failure (RVF). Minimally invasive technique was favored in patients with worse right ventricular (RV) function to prevent the need for postoperative RV support and bleeding.

RESULTS

The mean ages of the patients in the Group 1 and Group 2 were 46 ± 15 years (82% male), and 45 ± 11.2 years (81.5% males), respectively. Post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, blood loss, and reoperations were similar (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in early RVF, pump thrombosis, stroke, bleeding, and 30-day mortality between groups (p > 0.05). Incidence of late RVF was higher in Group 2 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although the risk of late RVF may increase in patients with preoperative severe TI, not intervening in TI during LVAD implantation does not cause adverse clinical outcomes in the early period.

Tricuspid regurgitation in the setting of LVAD support

Tricuspid valve regurgitation (TR) is a common complication of end-stage heart failure. Increased pulmonary venous pressures caused by left ventricular (LV) dysfunction can result in a progressive dilation of the right ventricle and tricuspid valve annulus, resulting in functional TR. Here, we review what is known about TR in the setting of severe LV dysfunction necessitating long-term mechanical support with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), including the occurrence of significant TR, its pathophysiology, and natural history. We examine the impact of uncorrected TR on LVAD outcomes and the impact of tricuspid valve interventions at the time of LVAD placement, revealing that TR frequently improves after LVAD placement with or without concomitant tricuspid valve intervention such that the benefit of concomitant intervention remains controversial. We summarize the current evidence on which to base medical decisions and provide recommendations for future directions of study to address outstanding questions in the field.

Pathophysiology and management of valvular disease in patients with destination left ventricular assist devices

Over the last two decades, implantable continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have proven to be invaluable tools for the management of selected advanced heart failure patients, improving patient longevity and quality of life. The presence of concomitant valvular pathology, including that involving the tricuspid, mitral, and aortic valve, has important implications relating to the decision to move forward with LVAD implantation. Furthermore, the presence of concomitant valvular pathology often influences the surgical strategy for LVAD implantation. Concomitant valve repair or replacement is not uncommonly required in such circumstances, which increases surgical complexity and has demonstrated prognostic implications both short and longer term following LVAD implantation. Beyond the index operation, it is also well established that certain valvular pathologies may develop or worsen over time following LVAD support. The presence of pre-existing valvular pathology or that which develops following LVAD implant is of particular importance to the destination therapy LVAD patient population. As these patients are not expected to have the opportunity for heart transplantation in the future, optimization of LVAD support including ameliorating valvular disease is critical for the maximization of patient longevity and quality of life. As collective experience has grown over time, the ability of clinicians to effectively address concomitant valvular pathology in LVAD patients has improved in the pre-implant, implant, and post-implant phase, through both medical management and procedural optimization. Nevertheless, there remains uncertainty over many facets of concomitant valvular pathology in advanced heart failure patients, and the understanding of how to best approach these conditions in the LVAD patient population continues to evolve. Herein, we present a comprehensive review of the current state of the field relating to the pathophysiology and management of valvular disease in destination LVAD patients.

Development of tricuspid regurgitation and right ventricular performance after implantation of centrifugal left ventricular assist devices

Background

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is associated with a poor prognosis. This study evaluates the development of TR and right ventricular (RV) performance after LVAD implantation.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LVAD implantation between March 2018 and June 2019. Patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid valve surgery and patients with congenital heart disease were excluded.

Results

A total of 155 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Fourteen patients were excluded. Of the remaining patients, thirty-one died during the first six months, six were lost to follow-up and two underwent transplantation. 102 patients presented at 6.3 months (5.8 to 7.0). Patients were supported with HeartWare HVAD (74%) or HeartMate 3 (26%). 50.4% were rated as INTERMACS profile 1 or 2. At six months, systolic pulmonary artery pressure dropped from 36 to 21 mmHg (P<0.001). Tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion decreased from 17.3 to 14.3 mm (P<0.001), RV fractional area change did not change (P=0.839). Twenty-two patients (22%) presented with moderate-to-severe or severe (ms-s) TR pre-operatively. Of these, eighteen (81%) showed improvement to ≤ moderate TR. At follow-up twelve patients presented with ms-s TR. Of these, only four patients (33%) had been diagnosed with ms-s TR pre-operatively. There were no differences in pre-operative echocardiographic or clinical parameters between the twelve patients with ms-s late TR and the other ninety patients in the cohort.

Conclusions

TR can show an impressive improvement with LVAD support. Longitudinal RV function decreases; this appears to be compensated by transverse shortening. Late TR can develop independently from pre-operative parameters including TR.

Outcome of patients receiving a continuous flow left ventricular assist device - a retrospective single center study

Objectives. We present the outcome of the first 80 patients receiving a continuous flow left ventricular assist device at Helsinki University Hospital between December 2011 and November 2018. Design. This was a single-center retrospective study. We describe our patient management in detail. The primary end-points were death, heart transplantation, or pump explant. Data was reported in accordance with the Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support protocol. All patients receiving an assist device during the study period were included in the data analysis. Results. Mean patient age was 53 ± 12 years at implantation and 85% were male. Most patients suffered from dilated (48%), or ischemic (40%) cardiomyopathy. One-third of patients were bridged with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to assist device implantation. Implant strategy was bridge to transplant or bridge to decision in most patients (88%). Mean follow-up time on pump was 529 ± 467 days. Survival was 98, 92, 85, 79 and 71% at 1, 3, 12, 24 and 36 months, respectively. Most common causes of death were multi-organ failure, right heart failure, or stroke. Only three patients (4%) had suspected pump thrombosis, two of which resolved with medical treatment and one resulting in death. Pump exchange or explant were not performed in a single patient. Neurological events occurred in 18%, non-disabling stroke in 8%, and fatal stroke in 4% of the patients. The incidence of device-related infection was 10%. Conclusions. Survival rates were good, although one third of patients were bridged with temporary circulatory support. We report a high level of freedom from pump thrombosis, fatal stroke, and driveline infection.