Brian A Houston1, Rohan J Kalathiya2, Steven Hsu1, Rahul Loungani2, Mary E Davis3, Samuel T Coffin4, Nicholas Haglund4, Simon Maltais3, Mary E Keebler4, Peter J Leary5, Daniel P Judge1, Gerin R Stevens1, John Rickard1, Chris M Sciortino6, Glenn J Whitman6, Ashish S Shah6, Stuart D Russell1, Ryan J Tedford7. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Osler Medical Residency, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 5. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Division of Cardiac Surgery, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 7. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: ryan.tedford@jmhi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) failure is a source of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. In this study we sought to define hemodynamic changes in afterload and RV adaptation to afterload both early after implantation and with prolonged LVAD support. METHODS: We reviewed right heart catheterization (RHC) data from participants who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institutions (n = 244), excluding those on inotropic or vasopressor agents, pulmonary vasodilators or additional mechanical support at any RHC assessment. Hemodynamic data were assessed at 5 time intervals: (1) pre-LVAD (within 6 months); (2) early post-LVAD (0 to 6 months); (3) 7 to 12 months; (4) 13 to 18 months; and (5) very late post-LVAD (18 to 36 months). RESULTS: Sixty participants met the inclusion criteria. All measures of right ventricular load (effective arterial elastance, pulmonary vascular compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance) improved between the pre- and early post-LVAD time periods. Despite decreasing load and pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), RAP remained unchanged and the RAP:PAWP ratio worsened early post-LVAD (0.44 [0.38, 0.63] vs 0.77 [0.59, 1.0], p < 0.001), suggesting a worsening of RV adaptation to load. With continued LVAD support, both RV load and RAP:PAWP decreased in a steep, linear and dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing RV load, LVAD implantation leads to worsened RV adaptation. With continued LVAD support, both RV afterload and RV adaptation improve, and their relationship remains constant over time post-LVAD. These findings suggest the RV afterload sensitivity increases after LVAD implantation, which has major clinical implications for patients struggling with RV failure.
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) failure is a source of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. In this study we sought to define hemodynamic changes in afterload and RV adaptation to afterload both early after implantation and with prolonged LVAD support. METHODS: We reviewed right heart catheterization (RHC) data from participants who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institutions (n = 244), excluding those on inotropic or vasopressor agents, pulmonary vasodilators or additional mechanical support at any RHC assessment. Hemodynamic data were assessed at 5 time intervals: (1) pre-LVAD (within 6 months); (2) early post-LVAD (0 to 6 months); (3) 7 to 12 months; (4) 13 to 18 months; and (5) very late post-LVAD (18 to 36 months). RESULTS: Sixty participants met the inclusion criteria. All measures of right ventricular load (effective arterial elastance, pulmonary vascular compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance) improved between the pre- and early post-LVAD time periods. Despite decreasing load and pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP), RAP remained unchanged and the RAP:PAWP ratio worsened early post-LVAD (0.44 [0.38, 0.63] vs 0.77 [0.59, 1.0], p < 0.001), suggesting a worsening of RV adaptation to load. With continued LVAD support, both RV load and RAP:PAWP decreased in a steep, linear and dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reducing RV load, LVAD implantation leads to worsened RV adaptation. With continued LVAD support, both RV afterload and RV adaptation improve, and their relationship remains constant over time post-LVAD. These findings suggest the RV afterload sensitivity increases after LVAD implantation, which has major clinical implications for patients struggling with RV failure.
Authors: Mark H Drazner; Robert N Brown; Patricia A Kaiser; Barry Cabuay; Neil P Lewis; Marc J Semigran; Guillermo Torre-Amione; David C Naftel; James K Kirklin Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Michael Dandel; Evgenij Potapov; Thomas Krabatsch; Alexander Stepanenko; Alexandra Löw; Juliane Vierecke; Christoph Knosalla; Roland Hetzer Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Chad E Wagner; Julian S Bick; Jason Kennedy; Nicholas Haglund; Matthew Danter; Mary E Davis; Andrew Shaw; Simon Maltais Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Marc A Simon; Robert L Kormos; John Gorcsan; Kaoru Dohi; Steve Winowich; Eileen Stanford; Lisa Carozza; Srinivas Murali Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: O H Frazier; E A Rose; M C Oz; W Dembitsky; P McCarthy; B Radovancevic; V L Poirier; K A Dasse Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Ryan J Tedford; Paul M Hassoun; Stephen C Mathai; Reda E Girgis; Stuart D Russell; David R Thiemann; Oscar H Cingolani; James O Mudd; Barry A Borlaug; Margaret M Redfield; David J Lederer; David A Kass Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Rebecca R Vanderpool; Michael R Pinsky; Robert Naeije; Christopher Deible; Vijaya Kosaraju; Cheryl Bunner; Michael A Mathier; Joan Lacomis; Hunter C Champion; Marc A Simon Journal: Heart Date: 2014-09-11 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Jeffrey R Gohean; Erik R Larson; Raul G Longoria; Mark Kurusz; Richard W Smalling Journal: Cardiovasc Eng Technol Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 2.495
Authors: Jennifer Sherwin; Elizabeth Thompson; Kevin D Hill; Kevin Watt; Andrew J Lodge; Daniel Gonzalez; Christoph P Hornik Journal: Cardiol Young Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 1.093
Authors: Gaurav Gulati; Robin Ruthazer; David Denofrio; Amanda R Vest; David Kent; Michael S Kiernan Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Brett Tomashitis; Catalin F Baicu; Ross A Butschek; Gregory R Jackson; Jeffrey Winterfield; Ryan J Tedford; Michael R Zile; Michael R Gold; Brian A Houston Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: E Wilson Grandin; Gaurav Gulati; Jose I Nunez; Kevin Kennedy; J Eduardo Rame; Pavan Atluri; Francis D Pagani; James K Kirklin; Robert L Kormos; Jeffrey Teuteberg; Michael S Kiernan Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 10.447
Authors: Berend E Westerhof; Nabil Saouti; Willem J van der Laarse; Nico Westerhof; Anton Vonk Noordegraaf Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 10.787
Authors: Vishal N Rao; Mary Jo Obeid; Francesca Rigiroli; Stuart D Russell; Chetan B Patel; Jeroen Molinger; Rajan T Gupta; Richa Agarwal; Marat Fudim Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 5.712