Outcomes Among Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Receiving Maintenance Outpatient Hemodialysis: A Case Series

Outcomes of Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices Requiring Intermittent Hemodialysis: Single-Center Cohort, Systematic Review, and Individual-Participant Data Meta-Analysis

Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) who require intermittent hemodialysis (iHD) are considered to have a poor prognosis despite a paucity of supportive evidence, mostly from small single-center cohorts and extrapolations from studies of patients who received continuous renal replacement therapy but no iHD. We conducted a systematic review and individual-participant-data meta-analysis of the literature including our single-center cohort to examine the outcomes of patients initiated on iHD following LVAD implantation. Sixty-four patients from 5 cohorts met selection criteria (age 57.5 [46-64.5] years, 87% HeartMate II, mostly bridge to transplantation). Follow-up after iHD initiation was 87.5 (38.5-269.5) days, although it was considerably longer in our center than in other cohorts (601.5 [93-1559] days vs 65 [26-180] days, P = 0.0007). The estimated median survival was 308 (76-912.5) days and varied significantly among cohorts, ranging from 60 (57-65) to 838 (103-1872) days (P = 0.0096). Twelve (18.8%) patients achieved either heart transplantation (HT) or remission during follow-up. Patients who received HT had an 8-fold longer estimated median survival (1972 [799-1972] days vs 244 [64-838] days, P = 0.0112). Being from a more recent cohort was associated with better 1-year survival. Renal recovery occurred in eight patients (13.1%) at 30 days and its cumulative incidence increased to 73% (27/37 patients with available data) at 1 year. Most patients initiated on iHD after LVAD experienced renal recovery within the first year after implantation. Improved survival was observed for patients who received HT and in those from more recent cohorts. Some patients were able to survive on LVAD and iHD support for several years.

Outcomes With Left Ventricular Assist Device in End-Stage Renal Disease: A Systematic Review

Renal dysfunction is a common comorbidity in patients with advanced heart failure who may benefit from mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Unfortunately, renal function may result after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. The purpose of this study is to examine the outcomes of advanced heart failure patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplant (BTT) or destination therapy (DT). We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane in September 2021. The following keywords were used: left ventricular assist device or LVAD and end-stage renal disease or ESRD. Our study included case reports, case series, descriptive studies, and randomized control trials. Review articles, guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. We also excluded pediatric cases. We identified 278 articles; 92 were duplicated, 186 articles entered the screening phase, and 133 articles were excluded by title and abstract. After the full-text screening, 40 articles were excluded. This systematic review included 13 articles. Among the contraindications to LVAD implantation, a general contraindication is for patients found to have stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): <30 mL/minute/1.73 m²), while those on dialysis are an absolute contraindication LVAD implantation. Despite the limited data and publications on LVADs in patients with ESRD, LVAD implantation as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy may be considered in selected patients without increasing morbidity and mortality. Therefore, shared decision-making around the treatment of advanced heart failure with these patients and the care team is essential.

Nephrology Considerations in the Management of Durable and Temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support

Durable and temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use is growing for a range of cardiovascular indications. Kidney dysfunction is common in people evaluated for or receiving durable or temporary MCS and portends worse outcomes. This kidney dysfunction can be due to preexisting kidney chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute kidney injury (AKI) related to acute cardiovascular disease necessitating MCS, AKI due to cardiac procedures, and acute and chronic MCS effects and complications. Durable MCS, with implantable continuous flow pumps, is used for long-term support in advanced heart failure refractory to guideline-directed medical and device therapy, either permanently or as a bridge to heart transplantation. Temporary MCS-encompassing in this review intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABP), axial flow pumps, centrifugal flow pumps, and venoarterial ECMO-is used for diverse situations: high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), acute decompensated heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and resuscitation after cardiac arrest. The wide adoption of MCS makes it imperative to improve understanding of the effects of MCS on kidney health/function and of kidney health/function on MCS outcomes. The complex structure and functions of the kidney, and the complex health states of individuals receiving MCS, makes investigations in this area challenging, and current knowledge is limited. Fortunately, the increasing nephrology toolbox of noninvasive kidney health/function assessments may enable development and testing of individualized management strategies and therapeutics in the future. We review technology, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical considerations, and future directions in MCS and nephrology.

Successful Use of Arteriovenous Graft for Hemodialysis Access After Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement

Kidney replacement therapy is required in up to one-third of patients after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. A subset of these patients requires long-term maintenance hemodialysis and therefore needs durable vascular access but the ideal access in such patients has not been established. We present a series of 3 patients in whom arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) were successfully used for long-term kidney replacement therapy after LVAD placement. The maximum time from AVG placement to first successful AVG use was 40 days, and the longest AVG use duration was more than 2 years. 2 patients required AVG excision due to infection but both had successful placement of a second AVG. Total time on kidney replacement therapy was 993, 1,055, and 956 days for the 3 cases, of which dialysis catheter use was required for only 23%, 6.5%, and 27%, respectively. These cases suggest that AVG placement is a viable option for dialysis access in patients with LVADs.

Peritoneal dialysis improves quality-of-life in a left ventricular assist device destination therapy patient-a case report

BACKGROUND

Progressive renal insufficiency is frequent in heart failure patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The optimal strategy for long-term dialysis in LVAD patients and its effect on quality-of-life in these patients remain to be determined.

CASE SUMMARY

Our 55-year-old patient with pre-existing renal insufficiency received an LVAD as destination therapy because of advanced ischaemic heart failure. Six years after implantation, he developed end-stage renal disease for which peritoneal dialysis (PD) was initiated. Left ventricular assist device flow alterations during ultrafiltration did not cause clinical or technical problems. The patient's exercise capacity increased and quality-of-life improved. Over 7.5 years after LVAD implantation and 16 months after PD initiation, he died from encephalitis.

DISCUSSION

Despite initial improvement, renal function often gradually decreases after LVAD implantation. Data on long-term renal replacement therapy in LVAD patients are limited. Haemodialysis is most commonly applied. Conceptually, however, PD has advantages over haemodialysis including less bloodstream infections, less haemodynamic shifts, and the comfort of the ambulant setting. This case illustrates that PD in an LVAD patient is feasible and improves quality-of-life. Key factors contributing to successful PD in LVAD patients may be a good right ventricular function and close cardiology-nephrology collaboration.