Palak Shah1, Mitchell Psotka1, Iosif Taleb2,3, Rami Alharethi2, Mortada A Shams1,4, Omar Wever-Pinzon2,3, Michael Yin2,3, Federica Latta1,5, Josef Stehlik2, James C Fang2, Guoqing Diao6, Ramesh Singh7, Naila Ijaz1, Christos P Kyriakopoulos2,3, Wei Zhu1, Christopher W May1, Lauren B Cooper2, Shashank S Desai2, Craig H Selzman2,3, Abdallah G Kfoury2, Stavros G Drakos2,3. 1. Heart Failure, Mechanical Circulatory Support and Transplant (P.S., M.P., M.A.S., F.L., N.I., W.Z., C.W.M.), Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 2. Utah Transplant Affiliated Hospitals (U.T.A.H.) Cardiac Transplant Program, University of Utah Health and School of Medicine, Intermountain Medical Center and Salt Lake Veterans Affairs Medical Center (I.T., R.A., O.W.-P., M.Y., J.S., J.C.F., C.P.K., L.B.C., S.S.D., C.H.S., A.K., S.G.D.). 3. Nora Eccles Harrison Cardiovascular Research and Training Institute, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (I.T., O.W.-P., M.Y., C.P.K., C.H.S., S.G.D.). 4. Division of Cardiology (M.A.S.), George Washington University, Washington, DC. 5. Department of Cardiology, University of Brescia, Italy (F.L.). 6. Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics (G.D.), George Washington University, Washington, DC. 7. Cardiac Surgery (R.S.), Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variable definitions and an incomplete understanding of the gradient of reverse cardiac remodeling following continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has limited the field of myocardial plasticity. We evaluated the continuum of LV remodeling by serial echocardiographic imaging to define 3 stages of reverse cardiac remodeling following LVAD. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive LVAD patients across 4 study sites. A blinded echocardiographer evaluated the degree of structural (LV internal dimension at end-diastole [LVIDd]) and functional (LV ejection fraction [LVEF]) change after LVAD. Patients experiencing an improvement in LVEF ≥40% and LVIDd ≤6.0 cm were termed responders, absolute change in LVEF of ≥5% and LVEF <40% were termed partial responders, and the remaining patients with no significant improvement in LVEF were termed nonresponders. RESULTS: Among 358 LVAD patients, 34 (10%) were responders, 112 (31%) partial responders, and the remaining 212 (59%) were nonresponders. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure was higher in partial responders and responders. Structural changes (LVIDd) followed a different pattern with significant improvements even in patients who had minimal LVEF improvement. With mechanical unloading, the median reduction in LVIDd was -0.6 cm (interquartile range [IQR], -1.1 to -0.1 cm; nonresponders), -1.1 cm (IQR, -1.8 to -0.4 cm; partial responders), and -1.9 cm (IQR, -2.9 to -1.1 cm; responders). Similarly, the median change in LVEF was -2% (IQR, -6% to 1%), 9% (IQR, 6%-14%), and 27% (IQR, 23%-33%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reverse cardiac remodeling associated with durable LVAD support is not an all-or-none phenomenon and manifests in a continuous spectrum. Defining 3 stages across this continuum can inform clinical management, facilitate the field of myocardial plasticity, and improve the design of future investigations.
BACKGROUND: Variable definitions and an incomplete understanding of the gradient of reverse cardiac remodeling following continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has limited the field of myocardial plasticity. We evaluated the continuum of LV remodeling by serial echocardiographic imaging to define 3 stages of reverse cardiac remodeling following LVAD. METHODS: The study enrolled consecutive LVAD patients across 4 study sites. A blinded echocardiographer evaluated the degree of structural (LV internal dimension at end-diastole [LVIDd]) and functional (LV ejection fraction [LVEF]) change after LVAD. Patients experiencing an improvement in LVEF ≥40% and LVIDd ≤6.0 cm were termed responders, absolute change in LVEF of ≥5% and LVEF <40% were termed partial responders, and the remaining patients with no significant improvement in LVEF were termed nonresponders. RESULTS: Among 358 LVAD patients, 34 (10%) were responders, 112 (31%) partial responders, and the remaining 212 (59%) were nonresponders. The use of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure was higher in partial responders and responders. Structural changes (LVIDd) followed a different pattern with significant improvements even in patients who had minimal LVEF improvement. With mechanical unloading, the median reduction in LVIDd was -0.6 cm (interquartile range [IQR], -1.1 to -0.1 cm; nonresponders), -1.1 cm (IQR, -1.8 to -0.4 cm; partial responders), and -1.9 cm (IQR, -2.9 to -1.1 cm; responders). Similarly, the median change in LVEF was -2% (IQR, -6% to 1%), 9% (IQR, 6%-14%), and 27% (IQR, 23%-33%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reverse cardiac remodeling associated with durable LVAD support is not an all-or-none phenomenon and manifests in a continuous spectrum. Defining 3 stages across this continuum can inform clinical management, facilitate the field of myocardial plasticity, and improve the design of future investigations.
Authors: Stavros G Drakos; Abdallah G Kfoury; Josef Stehlik; Craig H Selzman; Bruce B Reid; John V Terrovitis; John N Nanas; Dean Y Li Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-07-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael Dandel; Yuguo Weng; Henryk Siniawski; Evgenij Potapov; Hans B Lehmkuhl; Roland Hetzer Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Veli K Topkara; A Reshad Garan; Barry Fine; Amandine F Godier-Furnémont; Alexander Breskin; Barbara Cagliostro; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Donna M Mancini; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Megan McCullough; Cesar Caraballo; Neal G Ravindra; P Elliott Miller; Catherine Mezzacappa; Andrew Levin; Jadry Gruen; Benjamin Rodwin; Samuel Reinhardt; David van Dijk; Ayyaz Ali; Tariq Ahmad; Nihar R Desai Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Nikolaos A Diakos; Craig H Selzman; Frank B Sachse; Josef Stehlik; Abdallah G Kfoury; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Anna Catino; Rami Alharethi; Bruce B Reid; Dylan V Miller; Mohamed Salama; Alexey V Zaitsev; Junko Shibayama; Hui Li; James C Fang; Dean Y Li; Stavros G Drakos Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-10-14 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michael Dandel; Yuguo Weng; Henryk Siniawski; Alexander Stepanenko; Thomas Krabatsch; Evgenij Potapov; Hans B Lehmkuhl; Christoph Knosalla; Roland Hetzer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Christos P Kyriakopoulos; Chris J Kapelios; Elizabeth L Stauder; Iosif Taleb; Rana Hamouche; Konstantinos Sideris; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Michael J Bonios; Stavros G Drakos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Eleanor F Gerhard; Lu Wang; Ramesh Singh; Stephan Schueler; Leonard D Genovese; Andrew Woods; Daniel Tang; Nicola Robinson Smith; Mitchell A Psotka; Sian Tovey; Shashank S Desai; Djordje G Jakovljevic; Guy A MacGowan; Palak Shah Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2021-08-11 Impact factor: 10.247