BACKGROUND: Long-term left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have been used both as a bridge to heart transplantation and to recovery of native myocardial function. Despite much evidence for reversal of some of the structural and functional changes present in the failing heart during LVAD support, clinical evidence for sustained myocardial recovery is scant. We describe 2 patients in whom myocardial recovery during LVAD support led to device explanation only to have heart failure recur. This necessitated a second LVAD implantation, a process that we have termed recurrent remodeling. METHODS: The medical records of 2 patients with cardiomyopathy supported with HeartMate LVADs (Thermo Cardiosystems, Inc, Woburn, MA) were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: One patient was supported with an LVAD for 2 months, at which time the LVAD was explanted. Progressive deterioration of cardiac function followed, requiring a second LVAD 19 months after LVAD explanation. After 2 months of further LVAD support, a second episode of apparent myocardial recovery was observed during a period of device malfunction. The other patient was supported with an LVAD for 12 months, at which time the LVAD was explanted. The patient experienced progressive hemodynamic deterioration and required a second LVAD 6 months after LVAD explantation. Heart transplantations of both patients were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Our understanding of myocardial recovery in the setting of hemodynamic unloading with LVAD support has not yet progressed to the point where we are able to accurately predict successful long-term LVAD explantation. The evolution of reliable predictors of sustainable myocardial recovery will help to avoid further cases of recurrent remodeling requiring repeat LVAD implantation.
BACKGROUND: Long-term left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have been used both as a bridge to heart transplantation and to recovery of native myocardial function. Despite much evidence for reversal of some of the structural and functional changes present in the failing heart during LVAD support, clinical evidence for sustained myocardial recovery is scant. We describe 2 patients in whom myocardial recovery during LVAD support led to device explanation only to have heart failure recur. This necessitated a second LVAD implantation, a process that we have termed recurrent remodeling. METHODS: The medical records of 2 patients with cardiomyopathy supported with HeartMate LVADs (Thermo Cardiosystems, Inc, Woburn, MA) were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: One patient was supported with an LVAD for 2 months, at which time the LVAD was explanted. Progressive deterioration of cardiac function followed, requiring a second LVAD 19 months after LVAD explanation. After 2 months of further LVAD support, a second episode of apparent myocardial recovery was observed during a period of device malfunction. The other patient was supported with an LVAD for 12 months, at which time the LVAD was explanted. The patient experienced progressive hemodynamic deterioration and required a second LVAD 6 months after LVAD explantation. Heart transplantations of both patients were successful. CONCLUSIONS: Our understanding of myocardial recovery in the setting of hemodynamic unloading with LVAD support has not yet progressed to the point where we are able to accurately predict successful long-term LVAD explantation. The evolution of reliable predictors of sustainable myocardial recovery will help to avoid further cases of recurrent remodeling requiring repeat LVAD implantation.
Authors: Ana Maria Segura; Lamia Dris; Edward K Massin; Fred J Clubb; L Maximilian Buja; O H Frazier; Heinrich Taegtmeyer Journal: Tex Heart Inst J Date: 2014-08-01
Authors: Kevin L Sack; Brian Baillargeon; Gabriel Acevedo-Bolton; Martin Genet; Nuno Rebelo; Ellen Kuhl; Liviu Klein; Georg M Weiselthaler; Daniel Burkhoff; Thomas Franz; Julius M Guccione Journal: Int J Artif Organs Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 1.595