Eleanor F Gerhard1, Lu Wang2, Ramesh Singh3, Stephan Schueler4, Leonard D Genovese5, Andrew Woods4, Daniel Tang3, Nicola Robinson Smith4, Mitchell A Psotka5, Sian Tovey4, Shashank S Desai5, Djordje G Jakovljevic6, Guy A MacGowan2, Palak Shah7. 1. Heart Failure, Mechanical Circulatory Support and Transplantation, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia; George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington DC, Washington DC. 2. Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 3. Cardiac Surgery, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 4. Cardiothoracic Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. 5. Heart Failure, Mechanical Circulatory Support and Transplantation, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. 6. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom. 7. Heart Failure, Mechanical Circulatory Support and Transplantation, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Virginia. Electronic address: palak.shah@inova.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) mechanically unload the heart and coupled with neurohormonal therapy can promote reverse cardiac remodeling and myocardial recovery. Minimally invasive LVAD decommissioning with the device left in place has been reported to be safe over short-term follow-up. Whether device retention reduces long-term safety, or sustainability of recovery is unknown. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective analysis of patients who had achieved responder status (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF ≥40% and left ventricular internal diastolic diameter, LVIDd ≤6.0 cm) and underwent elective LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery from May 2010 to January 2020. All patients had outflow graft closure and driveline resection with the LVAD left in place. Emergent LVAD decommissioning for an infection or device thrombosis was excluded. Patients were followed with serial echocardiography for up to 3-years. The primary clinical outcome was survival free of heart failure hospitalization, LVAD reimplantation, or transplant. RESULTS: During the study period 515 patients received an LVAD and 29 (5.6%) achieved myocardial recovery, 12 patients underwent total device explantation or urgent device decommissioning, 17 patients underwent elective LVAD decommissioning, and were included in the analysis. Median age of patients at LVAD implantation was 42 years (interquartile range, IQR: 25-54 years), all had a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 5 (29%) were female. At LVAD implantation, median LVEF was 10% (IQR: 5%-15%), and LVIDd 6.6 cm (IQR: 5.8-7.1 cm). There were 11 hydrodynamically levitated centrifugal-flow (65%), and 6 axial-flow LVADs (35%). The median duration of LVAD support before decommissioning was 28.7 months (range 13.5-36.2 months). As compared to the turndown study parameters, 1-month post-decommissioning, median LVEF decreased from 55% to 48% (p = 0.03), and LVIDd increased from 4.8 cm to 5.2 cm (p = 0.10). There was gradual remodeling until 6 months, after which there was no statistical difference on follow-up through 3-years (LVEF 42%, LVIDd 5.6 cm). Recurrent infections affected 41% of patients leading to 3 deaths and 1 complete device explant. Recurrent HF occurred in 1 patient who required a transplant. Probability of survival free of HF, LVAD, or transplant was 94% at 1-year, and 78% at 3-years. CONCLUSIONS: LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery was associated with excellent long-term survival free from recurrent heart failure and preservation of ventricular size and function up to 3-years. Reducing the risk of recurrent infections, remains an important therapeutic goal for this management strategy.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) mechanically unload the heart and coupled with neurohormonal therapy can promote reverse cardiac remodeling and myocardial recovery. Minimally invasive LVAD decommissioning with the device left in place has been reported to be safe over short-term follow-up. Whether device retention reduces long-term safety, or sustainability of recovery is unknown. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective analysis of patients who had achieved responder status (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF ≥40% and left ventricular internal diastolic diameter, LVIDd ≤6.0 cm) and underwent elective LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery from May 2010 to January 2020. All patients had outflow graft closure and driveline resection with the LVAD left in place. Emergent LVAD decommissioning for an infection or device thrombosis was excluded. Patients were followed with serial echocardiography for up to 3-years. The primary clinical outcome was survival free of heart failure hospitalization, LVAD reimplantation, or transplant. RESULTS: During the study period 515 patients received an LVAD and 29 (5.6%) achieved myocardial recovery, 12 patients underwent total device explantation or urgent device decommissioning, 17 patients underwent elective LVAD decommissioning, and were included in the analysis. Median age of patients at LVAD implantation was 42 years (interquartile range, IQR: 25-54 years), all had a nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 5 (29%) were female. At LVAD implantation, median LVEF was 10% (IQR: 5%-15%), and LVIDd 6.6 cm (IQR: 5.8-7.1 cm). There were 11 hydrodynamically levitated centrifugal-flow (65%), and 6 axial-flow LVADs (35%). The median duration of LVAD support before decommissioning was 28.7 months (range 13.5-36.2 months). As compared to the turndown study parameters, 1-month post-decommissioning, median LVEF decreased from 55% to 48% (p = 0.03), and LVIDd increased from 4.8 cm to 5.2 cm (p = 0.10). There was gradual remodeling until 6 months, after which there was no statistical difference on follow-up through 3-years (LVEF 42%, LVIDd 5.6 cm). Recurrent infections affected 41% of patients leading to 3 deaths and 1 complete device explant. Recurrent HF occurred in 1 patient who required a transplant. Probability of survival free of HF, LVAD, or transplant was 94% at 1-year, and 78% at 3-years. CONCLUSIONS: LVAD decommissioning for myocardial recovery was associated with excellent long-term survival free from recurrent heart failure and preservation of ventricular size and function up to 3-years. Reducing the risk of recurrent infections, remains an important therapeutic goal for this management strategy.
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: Simon Johannes Sonntag; Erin Lipinski; Michael Neidlin; Kristin Hugenroth; Robert Benkowski; Tadashi Motomura; Tim Arne Simon Kaufmann Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2019 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Felix Schoenrath; Laura Kursawe; Gaik Nersesian; Judith Kikhney; Julia Schmidt; Frank Barthel; Friedrich Kaufmann; Jan Knierim; Christoph Knosalla; Felix Hennig; Volkmar Falk; Evgenij Potapov; Annette Moter Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2021-05-01 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: O H Frazier; Andrew C W Baldwin; Zumrut T Demirozu; Ana Maria Segura; Ruben Hernandez; Heinrich Taegtmeyer; Hari Mallidi; William E Cohn Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Guy A MacGowan; Neil Wrightson; Nicola Robinson-Smith; Andrew Woods; Gareth Parry; Kate Gould; Stephan Schueler Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Palak Shah; Sarah E Birk; Lauren B Cooper; Mitchell A Psotka; James K Kirklin; Scott D Barnett; Shalika B Katugaha; Sheila Phillips; Mary M Looby; Francis D Pagani; Jennifer A Cowger Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Sanford M Zeigler; Ahmad Y Sheikh; Peter H U Lee; Jay Desai; Dipanjan Banerjee; Philip Oyer; Michael D Dake; Richard V Ha Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Palak Shah; Mitchell Psotka; Iosif Taleb; Rami Alharethi; Mortada A Shams; Omar Wever-Pinzon; Michael Yin; Federica Latta; Josef Stehlik; James C Fang; Guoqing Diao; Ramesh Singh; Naila Ijaz; Christos P Kyriakopoulos; Wei Zhu; Christopher W May; Lauren B Cooper; Shashank S Desai; Craig H Selzman; Abdallah G Kfoury; Stavros G Drakos Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 8.790
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: Evgenij V Potapov; Nikolaos Politis; Matthias Karck; Michael Weyand; René Tandler; Thomas Walther; Fabian Emrich; Hermann Reichenspurrner; Alexander Bernhardt; Markus J Barten; Peter Svenarud; Jan Gummert; Davorin Sef; Torsten Doenst; Dmytro Tsyganenko; Antonio Loforte; Felix Schoenrath; Volkmar Falk Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg Date: 2022-03-31
Authors: Pankaj Jain; Michael S Kiernan; Gregory S Couper; Ethan Y Brovman; Samantha R Asber; Carey Kimmelstiel Journal: JACC Case Rep Date: 2022-03-16
Authors: Agata Jedrzejewska; Alicja Braczko; Ada Kawecka; Marcin Hellmann; Piotr Siondalski; Ewa Slominska; Barbara Kutryb-Zajac; Magdi H Yacoub; Ryszard T Smolenski Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 6.208
Authors: Francesco Moroni; Keyur B Shah; Mohammed A Quader; Katherine Klein; Melissa C Smallfield; Kendall E Parris; Zachary M Gertz Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 2.585