Poddi, Salvatore

Despite the growing acceptance of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy to improve survival and quality of life in heart failure (HF) patients, uncertainties persist regarding the definition of a successful implant. We sought to define an innovative approach to assess success and subsequently compare preoperative variables affecting outcomes. From January 2007 to 2015, 278 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Median age at implant was 62 years and 81% patients were males. Indication for support was bridge-to-transplantation in 36% patients and the etiology of HF was ischemic in 49% patients. Based on clinically relevant and accepted standards, we defined successful LVAD implant as someone who was alive or transplanted at 2 years, had two or less readmissions in the first year, had no major adverse events in the first year, and had a New York Heart Association class of ≤ II at 6 months. Follow-up was obtained for a median of 1.7 years for a total of 605 patient-years-of-support. Based on our criteria, 81/278 (29%) patients were defined as having a successful implant. Univariate predictors of LVAD failure included destination therapy indication (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.11 [1.24, 3.58]), ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 1.73 [1.02, 2.94]), and a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (HR = 1.54 [1.07, 2.22]). After multivariable analysis, only destination therapy indication (HR = 2.2 [1.28, 3.78]) was found to be independently predictive of success failure. Despite an overall trend toward improved outcomes on device therapy, our criteria classified only one-third of patients as successful. Continued improvements in adverse event profiles, appropriate patient selection, and optimal time of implantation, together hold the key to improve outcomes after LVAD therapy.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are common in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. TR progression is associated with the presence of AF, and questions remain as to who benefits from tricuspid valve procedures (TVPs). We examined the impact of preoperative AF on TR progression after LVAD implantation. From February 2007 to May 2014, 250 patients underwent LVAD implantation at our institution. Patients with concomitant TVP were excluded from this analysis (113 patients). The indication for LVAD was destination therapy in 80 patients (58%) and the etiology of heart failure was ischemic in 73 (53%). Follow-up was available in all early survivors for a total of 393 patient-years of support. Of the 137 non-TVP patients, 52 (38%) had AF preoperatively. Observed overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 82%, 67%, and 55%, respectively. Median grade of TR increased from 2 preoperatively to 3 (p = 0.04) in the AF group and 2.2 (p = 0.75) in the non-AF group at 5 years of follow-up. We also observed a significant difference in the degree of TR between groups at 3 months (p = 0.03) and 12 months (p = 0.01) postimplantation, and a trend toward significance at 18 (p = 0.06) and 24 (p = 0.07) months. The presence of AF is associated with early progression of TR after LVAD implantation. Addition of concomitant TVP in patients with preoperative AF may be considered in patients with less than severe TR. The impact of these findings on right ventricular failure/remodeling remains to be evaluated.