| Literature DB >> 31635239 |
Aditi Singhvi1, Barry Trachtenberg2.
Abstract
Ambulatory patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) are increasing in number, and so is their life expectancy. Thus, there is an increasing need for care of these patients by non-LVAD specialists, such as providers in the emergency department, urgent care centers, community-based hospitals, outpatient clinics, etc. Non-LVAD specialists will increasingly come across LVAD patients and should be equipped with the knowledge and skills to provide initial assessment and management for these complex patients. These encounters may be for LVAD-related or unrelated issues. However, there are limited data and guidelines to assist non-LVAD specialists in caring for these complex patients. The aim of our review, targeting primary care providers (both inpatient and outpatient), general cardiologists, and other providers is to describe the current status of durable LVAD therapy in adults, patient selection, management strategies, complications and to summarize current outcome data.Entities:
Keywords: complications; left ventricular assist devices; management; outcomes
Year: 2019 PMID: 31635239 PMCID: PMC6832899 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8101720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Components of a left ventricular assist device system. (A): Representation of a patient with an LVAD depicting its various external components. (B): Inset showing the heart in cross-section with the internal components and connections of an LVAD.
Figure 2Pump housing and impeller design. (A): (left) Axial flow pump: HeartMate II LVAD (taken from Figure 2 in the HeartMate II left ventricular assist system instructions for use). (B) (right) Centrifugal flow pump: HeartWare assist device (taken from Figure 2 in the HeartWare assist device patient manual).
Typical LVAD operating parameters.
| Pump Parameter | HeartMate II | HeartMate 3 | HVAD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Typical speed, rpm | 8800–10,000 | 5000–6000 | 2400–3200 |
| Speed adjustment increment, rpm/increment | 200 | 100 | 20 |
| Flow, L/min | 4–7 | 4–6 | 4–6 |
| Power, Watts | 5–8 | 4.5–6.5 | 3–7 |
| Pulsatility index (or HVAD, peak to trough) | 5–8 | 3.5–5.5 | 2–4 L/min/beat |
Major Differences Among the Current LVADs.
| Feature | Heartmate II | HVAD and HeartMate 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Pump design | Axial flow | Centrifugal flow |
| Size and surgical implant |
Large Surgical implantation in a pre-peritoneal pocket |
Small and compact Implanted directly adjacent to the heart in the pericardial space |
| Blood flow and power consumption |
Relationship between blood flow and power consumption is more linear Flow and cardiac output estimation more accurate Patient’s hematocrit is also used to estimate the serum viscosity, which is used in the flow calculation | |
| Hydrodynamic performance |
Less change in flow for a given change in pressure gradient across the pump (i.e., afterload minus preload) Flow is less pulsatile |
Larger change in flow for a given change in pressure gradient across the pump (i.e., afterload minus preload) Results in phasic changes in LVAD flow during systole and diastole as the pressure gradient changes during the cardiac cycle Greater pulsatility Since the pressure gradient across the pump is determined by the systemic blood pressure, strict blood pressure management is imperative for normal pump function. |
| Additional feature |
Algorithm which periodically modulates the pump speed Termed “Artificial Pulse” for HeartMate 3 and “Lavare Cycle” for HVAD Promotes washing of the pump and facilitates intermittent opening of the native aortic May reduce rates of pump thrombosis with HeartMate 3, and aortic valve insufficiency and stroke with HVAD [ |
Summary of key LVAD clinical trials.
| Study, Year (Reference) | N | Device Tested | Indication | Design | Patient Population | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| REMATCH, 2001 | 129 | HeartMate XVE | DT | Prospective 1:1 HeartMate XVE vs. medical therapy | NYHA functional class IV for 60 days, LVEF < 25%, and peak VO2 < 14 mL/min/kg (unless on balloon pump, IV inotropes, or physically unable to perform exercise test), or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) or IV inotrope dependent for 14 days | 1- and 2-yr HeartMate XVE survival of 52% and 23% vs. 25% and 8% on medical therapy |
| INTREPID, 2007 | 55 | Novacor | DT | Prospective nonrandomized | Inotrope-dependent patients | 1-yr Novacor survival of 27% vs. 11% on medical therapy |
| HeartMate II, 2007 | 133 | HeartMate II | BTT | Prospective nonrandomized | Transplant candidates with systolic HF and NYHA functional class IV and inotrope dependence or need for IABP support | 75% survival to transplant, recovery, or ongoing support although remaining eligible for transplant at 6 months |
| HeartMate II, 2009 | 192 | HeartMate II | DT | Prospective randomized 2:1 HeartMate II vs. HeartMate XVE | NYHA functional class IIIB or IV symptoms for >45 of the last 60 days, LVEF<25%, and peak VO2 <14 mL/min/kg (unless on IABP, IV inotropes, or physically unable to perform exercise test), or IABP dependent for 7 days or IV inotrope dependent for 14 days | 1- and 2-yr HeartMate II survival of 68% and 58% vs. 55% and 24% with HeartMate XVE |
| HeartMate II post-approval, 2011 | 169 | HeartMate II | BTT | Prospective nonrandomized | Consecutive patients eligible for transplant in INTERMACS | 90% survival to transplant, recovery, or ongoing support at 6 months |
| HeartMate II post-approval, 2014 | 247 | HeartMate II | DT | Prospective nonrandomized | Consecutive patients eligible for DT in INTERMACS | 1- and 2-yr survival of 74% and 61% |
| ADVANCE, 2012 | 137 | HVAD | BTT | Prospective nonrandomized. | Transplant candidates | 90.7% survival to transplant, recovery, or ongoing support on the original device vs. 90.1% in control group at 6 months |
| ENDURANCE, 2017 | 446 | HVAD | DT | Prospective, DT patients randomized 2:1 HVAD vs. HeartMate II | Chronic, advanced HF, NYHA functional class IIIB or IV despite recommended medical therapy, EF< 25%, and ineligible for transplantation at the time of enrollment |
HVAD noninferior to HeartMate II with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. More device malfunction or device failure requiring replacement in HeartMate II (16.2% vs. 8.8%). More strokes in HVAD (29.7% vs. 12.1%). |
| MOMENTUM 3 long-term cohort, 2018 | 366 | HeartMate 3 | BTT, DT and bridge to candidacy | Prospective, randomized, 1:1 HeartMate 3 vs. HeartMate II. Pre-specified interim analysis at 2 years | Advanced heart failure requiring LVAD. 60% ineligible for transplantation. 85% on IV inotropic therapy | Survival free from disabling stroke or reoperation to replace/remove a malfunctioning device at 24 months, in 79.5% of HeartMate 3 vs. 60.2% of HeartMate II ( |
| MOMENTUM 3 full cohort, 2019 | 1028 | HeartMate 3 | BTT, DT and bridge to candidacy | Prospective, randomized, 1:1 HeartMate 3 vs. HeartMate II. Adaptive trial design. Follow up period 2 years. | Advanced heart failure requiring LVAD. 61% were ineligible for transplantation. 86% were on intravenous inotrope therapy. |
Survival at 2 years free of disabling stroke or reoperation to replace or remove a malfunctioning device 74.7% vs. 60.6% ( 96.9% freedom from pump exchange. For every 100 patients implanted with HeartMate 3 rather than HeartMate II: 22 pump thrombosis events averted, 20 strokes averted, 68 bleeding events averted (36 gastrointestinal) Reduction in cardiac arrhythmias, particularly ventricular arrhythmias. Reduction in readmissions and days spent in the hospital. |
Summary of common LVAD-related complications.
| Complication | Management Strategy |
|---|---|
| LVAD infections |
Obtain local wound and blood cultures Imaging if evaluation is suspicious for driveline infection or if bacteremia is present Antibiotics and possible surgical debridement |
| Bleeding (non-surgical) |
Hold aspirin and warfarin For severe bleeding, consider reversal of anticoagulation after consultation with an LVAD specialist Transfuse if needed Tagged RBC scan or interventional procedure if rapid bleeding Upper GI source suspected–consider small bowel enteroscopy Lower GI source suspected–consider colonoscopy |
| Ventricular arrhythmias |
Consider anti-arrhythmic medications Cardioversion if hemodynamically unstable Optimize fluid status |
| LVAD malfunction |
Ensure device connections are secure Review LVAD alarms Evaluate LVAD flow and patient stability |
| Pump thrombosis |
Assess LVAD flow and patient stability Early pump thrombosis generally requires pump exchange. Augment anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy |
| Neurologic complications (stroke, intracranial hemorrhage) |
Activate stroke team Obtain CT head. Hold anticoagulation until imaging is performed. Ischemic stroke–Interventional radiology procedure if patient is a candidate. Otherwise, antiplatelet and anticoagulation in consultation with stroke team and LVAD specialist. Hemorrhagic stroke–Neurosurgical consultation and reversal of anticoagulation |
| Heart failure |
Assess for right-sided versus left-sided HF from incomplete unloading Optimize LVAD speed and diuresis |
Figure 3Approach to an unconscious patient with an LVAD.