Left Atrial Appendage Inversion Presenting as Acute Right Ventricular Failure after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ekanem E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7451932 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Left Atrial Appendage Inversion Presenting as Acute Right Ventricular Failure after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.
Ekanem Emmanuel E Gattani Raghav R Shea Jennifer J Zhao Qiong Q Singh Ramesh R Liam Ryan P RP
CASE (Philadelphia, Pa.) 20200413 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCharacterization of right heart catheterization (RHC) waveforms provides diagnostic and clinical information in heart failure patients. We aimed to investigate the implication of RHC waveforms, specifically the y-descent, in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD).Methods and resultsPatients underwent RHC and waveforms were quantified prior to and 6 months after LVAD implantation. The impact of a deep y-descent (>3 mmHg) on echocardiographic measures of right heart function and 1-year hemocompatibility-related adverse event rates were investigated. Eighty-nine patients (median 59 years old, 65 male) underwent RHC. RHC waveform showed unique changes following LVAD implantation, particularly an increase in the steepness of the y-descent. A post-LVAD deep y-descent was associated with reduced right ventricular function and enlarged right heart. Patients with post-LVAD deep y-descent had higher rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (0.866 vs 0.191 events/year) and stroke (0.199 vs 0 events/year) compared with those without (P< .05 for both).ConclusionRHC waveforms characterized by deep y-descent on RHC waveform during LVAD support was associated with impaired right ventricular function and worse clinical outcomes.
| S-EPMC7141956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe main aim was a systematic evaluation of the current evidence on outcomes for patients undergoing right ventricular assist device (RVAD) implantation following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.MethodsThis systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019130131). Reports evaluating in-hospital as well as follow-up outcome in LVAD and LVAD/RVAD implantation were identified through Ovid Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE. The primary endpoint was mortality at the hospital stay and at follow-up. Pooled incidence of defined endpoints was calculated by using random effects models.ResultsA total of 35 retrospective studies that included 3260 patients were analyzed. 30 days mortality was in favour of isolated LVAD implantation 6.74% (1.98-11.5%) versus 31.9% (19.78-44.02%) p = 0.001 in LVAD with temporary need for RVAD. During the hospital stay the incidence of major bleeding was 18.7% (18.2-19.4%) versus 40.0% (36.3-48.8%) and stroke rate was 5.6% (5.4-5.8%) versus 20.9% (16.8-28.3%) and was in favour of isolated LVAD implantation. Mortality reported at short-term as well at long-term was 19.66% (CI 15.73-23.59%) and 33.90% (CI 8.84-59.96%) in LVAD respectively versus 45.35% (CI 35.31-55.4%) p ⩽ 0.001 and 48.23% (CI 16.01-80.45%) p = 0.686 in LVAD/RVAD group respectively.ConclusionImplantation of a temporary RVAD is allied with a worse outcome during the primary hospitalization and at follow-up. Compared to isolated LVAD support, biventricular mechanical circulatory support leads to an elevated mortality and higher incidence of adverse events such as bleeding and stroke.
| S-EPMC9619248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations increases every year, particularly LVADs for destination therapy (DT). Right ventricular failure (RVF) has been recognized as a serious complication of LVAD implantation. Reported incidence of RVF after LVAD ranges from 6% to 44%, varying mostly due to differences in RVF definition, different types of LVADs, and differences in patient populations included in studies. RVF complicating LVAD implantation is associated with worse postoperative mortality and morbidity including worse end-organ function, longer hospital length of stay, and lower success of bridge to transplant (BTT) therapy. Importance of RVF and its predictors in a setting of LVAD implantation has been recognized early, as evidenced by abundant number of attempts to identify independent risk factors and develop RVF predictor scores with a common purpose to improve patient selection and outcomes by recognizing potential need for biventricular assist device (BiVAD) at the time of LVAD implantation. The aim of this article is to review and summarize current body of knowledge on risk factors and prediction scores of RVF after LVAD implantation. Despite abundance of studies and proposed risk scores for RVF following LVAD, certain common limitations make their implementation and clinical usefulness questionable. Regardless, value of these studies lies in providing information on potential key predictors for RVF that can be taken into account in clinical decision making. Further investigation of current predictors and existing scores as well as new studies involving larger patient populations and more sophisticated statistical prediction models are necessary. Additionally, a short description of our empirical institutional approach to management of RVF following LVAD implantation is provided.
| S-EPMC4295071 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4378056 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7399435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Right ventricular failure (RVF) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains a major complication which may significantly impair patient outcome. The genesis of RVF is, however, multifactorial, and the mechanisms underlying such a condition have not been fully elucidated, making its prevention challenging and the course not always predictable. Although preoperative risks factors can be associated with RV impairment, the physiologic changes after the LV support, can still hamper the function of the RV. Current medical treatment options are limited and sometimes, patients with a severe post-LVAD RVF may be unresponsive to pharmacological therapy and require more aggressive treatment, such as temporary RV support. We retrieved 11 publications which we assessed and divided in groups based on the RV support [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), right ventricular assist device (RVAD), TandemHeart with ProtekDuo cannula]. The current review comprehensively summarizes the main studies of the literature with particular attention to the RV physiology and its changes after the LVAD implantation, the predictors and prognostic score as well as the different modalities of temporary mechanical cardio-circulatory support, and its effects on patient prognosis for RVF in such a setting. In addition, it provides a decision making of the pre-, intra and post-operative management in high- and moderate- risk patients.
| S-EPMC7947472 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10797350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInvestigate the safety and efficacy of preoperative levosimendan in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.MethodsConsecutive patients who received LVADs (HeartMate-2, 3, HVAD) in a single tertiary medical center (2012-2018). INTERMACS profile 1 patients were excluded. The primary outcome was post-LVAD right ventricular failure (RVF) and inhospital mortality rates. The secondary outcomes included other clinical, echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters at follow-up.ResultsFinal cohort consisted of 62 patients (40[65%] in the levosimendan group and 22[35%] in the no-levosimendan group). Post-operative RVF rate and inotrope or ventilation support time were similar in the levosimendan and no-levosimendan groups (7.5% vs. 13.6%; P = 0.43, median of 51 vs. 72 h; P = 0.41 and 24 vs. 27 h; P = 0.19, respectively). Length of hospitalization, both total and in the intensive care unit, was not statistically significant (median days of 13 vs. 16; P = 0.34, and 3 vs. 4; P = 0.44, respectively). Post-operative laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and in-hospital complication rate did not differ between the groups, despite worse baseline clinical parameters in the Levosimendan group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital and long term mortality rate (2.5% vs. 4.5%; P > 0.999 and 10% vs. 27.3% respectively; P = 0.64).ConclusionsLevosimendan infusion prior to LVAD implantation was safe and associated with comparable results without significant improved post-operative outcomes, including RVF.
| S-EPMC9205013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract OBJECTIVES Perioperative mortality and complications still remain high after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, especially in highly compromised patient cohorts. Here, we evaluate the effects of preoperative Levosimendan therapy on peri- and postoperative outcomes after LVAD implantation. METHODS We retrospectively analysed 224 consecutive patients with LVAD implantation for end-stage heart failure between November 2010 and December 2019 in our centre with regard to short- and longer-term mortality as well as incidence of postoperative right ventricular failure (RV-F). Out of these, 117 (52.2%) received preoperative i.v. Levosimendan therapy within 7 days before LVAD implantation (Levo group). RESULTS In-hospital, 30-day and 5-year mortality was comparable (in-hospital mortality: 18.8% vs 23.4%, P = 0.40; 30-day mortality: 12.0% vs 14.0%, P = 0.65; Levo vs control group). However, in the multivariate analysis, preoperative Levosimendan therapy significantly reduced postoperative RV-F but increased postoperative vasoactive inotropic score ([RV-F: odds ratio 2.153, confidence interval 1.146–4.047, P = 0.017; vasoactive inotropic score 24 h post-surgery: odds ratio 1.023, confidence interval 1.008–1.038, P = 0.002). These results were further confirmed by 1:1 propensity score matching of 74 patients in each group. Especially in the subgroup of patients with normal preoperative RV function, the prevalence of postoperative RV-F was significantly lower in the Levo- group as compared to the control group (17.6% vs 31.1%, P = 0.03; respectively). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative Levosimendan therapy reduces the risk of postoperative RV-F, especially in patients with normal preoperative RV function without effects on mortality up to 5 years after LVAD implantation. The introduction of the newest generation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has further increased survival in patients with end-stage heart failure (HF) requiring long-term mechanical circulatory support either as bridge-to-transplant or destination therapy [1].
| S-EPMC9931070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesRight ventricular (RV) failure post left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A novel RV multi-plane imaging method using two-dimensional echocardiography and electronic plane rotation (MPE) was used to quantify RV function prior to LVAD implantation and to identify potential added value in this patient population.MethodsIn twenty-five end-stage heart failure patients (age 58.9 ± 6.8 years, 76% male), systolic function of four different RV walls (lateral, anterior, inferior and inferior coronal) were evaluated from one focussed apical view using MPE.ResultsFeasibility of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and tricuspid annular peak systolic velocity (RV-S') measurements were high (84-100%), with lower TAPSE values measured in the inferior (14.2 ± 4.6 mm) and inferior coronal (12.3 ± 5.0 mm) walls compared to the lateral (16.3 ± 4.5 mm) and anterior walls (16.0 ± 4.5 mm). RV wall longitudinal strain (RV-LS) measurement was most feasible in the lateral wall (80%; mean: -12.1 ± 4.2%). TAPSE and RV-LS values were significantly reduced in patients compared to matched healthy individuals (p = <0.001). Seven (28%) patients who developed moderate to severe RV failure (RVF) early post-implant (≤30 days) had lower pre-implant values across all multi-plane parameters compared to those without significant post-implant RVF, notably four-wall averaged TAPSE (11.1 ± 3.4 mm vs 15.9 ± 4.0 mm; p = 0.02).Conclusion2D MPE was highly feasible for RV wall quantification pre-LVAD surgery, detecting differences in regional wall function. This novel method comprehensively quantifies RV wall function and could complement current pre-LVAD screening protocols.
| S-EPMC9300057 | biostudies-literature