Clinical outcomes associated with INTERMACS-defined right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: LaRue SJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8272542 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical outcomes associated with INTERMACS-defined right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.
LaRue Shane J SJ Raymer David S DS Pierce Brian R BR Nassif Michael E ME Sparrow Christopher T CT Vader Justin M JM
The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation 20161230 4
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10797350 | 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:Late right heart failure (LRHF) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation remains poorly characterized and challenging to predict. We performed a multicenter retrospective study of LRHF in 237 consecutive adult LVAD patients, in which LRHF was defined according to the 2020 Mechanical Circulatory Support Academic Research Consortium guidelines. Clinical and hemodynamic variables were assessed pre- and post-implant. Competing-risk regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used to assess outcomes. LRHF prediction was assessed using multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression. Among 237 LVAD patients, 45 (19%) developed LRHF at a median of 133 days post-LVAD. LRHF patients had more frequent heart failure hospitalizations ( p < 0.001) alongside other complications. LRHF patients did not experience reduced bridge-to-transplant rates but did suffer increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.42; p = 0.02). Hemodynamically, LRHF patients demonstrated higher right atrial pressure, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR), but no difference in pulmonary arterial wedge pressure. History of early right heart failure, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) > 35 mg/dl at 1 month post-LVAD, and diuretic requirements at 1 month post-LVAD were each significant, independent predictors of LRHF in multivariable analysis. An LRHF prediction risk score incorporating these variables predicted LRHF with excellent discrimination (log-rank p < 0.0001). Overall, LRHF post-LVAD is more common than generally appreciated, with significant morbidity and mortality. Elevated PVR and precapillary pulmonary pressures may play a role. A risk score using early right heart failure, elevated BUN, and diuretic requirements 1 month post implant predicted the development of LRHF.
| S-EPMC10901567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCancer-therapy-related heart failure (CTrHF) due to cardiotoxic drugs or radiation is a growing cause of end-stage heart failure. Limited knowledge is available concerning the use of continuous-flow left-ventricular-assist devices (cfLVAD) in this setting.MethodsThe files of all 1334 patients who underwent cfLVAD implantation between December 2008 and December 2020 were screened for the cause of heart failure. All patients with CTrHF were included in the analysis.ResultsA total of 32 patients with a median age of 58 years (IQR: 46-65) were included in the study; 15 (47%) were male. The median time from the first diagnosis of heart failure (HF) to cfLVAD implantation was 6 months (IQR 2-24), and from cancer treatment to cfLVAD implantation 40 months (IQR 5-144). Malignancies comprised non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 12, 37%), breast cancer (n = 9, 28%), sarcoma (n = 5, 16%), leukemia (n = 5, 16%), and others (n = 1, 3%). In 24 patients, chemotherapy included anthracyclines (others n = 2, unknown n = 6). Chest radiation was performed in 13 patients (39%). Moreover, 71% were classified as INTERMACS profile 1 or 2. The 30-day survival rate after LVAD implantation was 88%. Rethoracotomy was necessary in nine (29%), and a temporary right ventricular assist device in seven (21%) patients. The median survival was 29 months. There was no significant difference in survival or right HF between patients with CTrHF and a matched control group.ConclusionsCfLVAD implantation is feasible in high-risk patients with CTrHF with or without prior chest radiation.
| S-EPMC9605306 | 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-EPMC7451932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early right heart failure (RHF) occurs in up to 40% of patients following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The most recent report from the Mechanical Circulatory Support-Academic Research Consortium (MCS-ARC) working group subdivides early RHF into early acute RHF and early postimplant RHF. We sought to determine the effectiveness of right ventricular (RV) longitudinal strain (LS) in predicting RHF according to the new MCS-ARC definition. We retrospectively analyzed clinical and echocardiographic data of patients who underwent LVAD implantation between 2015 and 2018. RVLS in the 4-chamber (4ch), RV outflow tract, and subcostal views were measured on pre-LVAD echocardiograms. Fifty-five patients were included in this study. Six patients (11%) suffered early acute RHF, requiring concomitant RVAD implantation intraoperatively. Twenty-two patients (40%) had postimplant RHF. RVLS was significantly reduced in patients who developed early acute and postimplant RHF. At a cutoff of -9.7%, 4ch RVLS had a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 77.8% for predicting RHF and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.97). Echocardiographic RV strain outperformed more invasive hemodynamic measures and clinical parameters in predicting RHF.
| S-EPMC8578577 | 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: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