Impact of preoperative extracorporeal life support on left ventricular assist device outcomes: A comparative study

Abstract

Background:

To investigate whether preoperative short-term extracorporeal life support therapy in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation has an impact on the outcome regarding survival and adverse events.

Methods:

Between January 2011 and May 2018, 100 consecutive patients received HeartMate II, HeartWare, or HeartMate III for end-stage heart failure. Mean age was 64.2 ± 10.3 years. Three patient groups were identified: without preoperative extracorporeal life support (non-extracorporeal life support group, n = 80), with preoperative extracorporeal life support due to postcardiotomy shock after conventional cardiac surgery (postcardiotomy shock group, n = 9), and with preoperative extracorporeal life support without previous surgery (non-postcardiotomy shock group, n = 11). The primary endpoint was overall survival after device implantation. Secondary endpoints were adverse events during the follow-up period.

Results:

Survival was significantly different between the groups (p < 0.05): 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year survival rates were 85%, 68%, and 61% for non-extracorporeal life support group; 44%, 22%, and 22% for postcardiotomy shock group; and 45%, 27%, and 24% for non-postcardiotomy shock group, respectively. Furthermore, in both extracorporeal life support groups (postcardiotomy shock and non-postcardiotomy shock), there were a higher incidence (p < 0.05) of postoperative right heart failure (30% vs 66.7% vs 54.5%), acute renal failure requiring dialysis (20% vs 77.8% vs 54.5%), and respiratory failure (31.3% vs 88.9% vs 81.8%).

Conclusion:

Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation with prior extracorporeal life support appears to have a worse outcome regarding survival, right heart failure, renal and respiratory dysfunction (p < 0.05). Future studies have to be done to evaluate the outcome after extracorporeal life support bridge pre-left ventricular assist device, especially as ultima ratio in postcardiotomy shock patients.

Keywords

Left ventricular assist device extracorporeal life support mechanical circulatory support heart failure cardiac assist and artificial heart

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Gummert

Barten

Rahmel

et al . Therapy for heart failure: the Leipzig approach. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017; 65(Suppl. 3): S205–S208.

Yancy

Jessup

Bozkurt

et al . 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013; 128(16): 1810–1852.

Kirklin

Pagani

Kormos

et al . Eighth annual INTERMACS report: special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36(10): 1080–1086.

Fatullayev

Samak

Sabashnikov

et al . Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device thrombosis: a danger foreseen is a danger avoided. Med Sci Monit Basic Res 2015; 21: 141–144.

Stevenson

Pagani

Young

et al . INTERMACS profiles of advanced heart failure: the current picture. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28(6): 535–541.

Alba

Rao

Ivanov

et al . Usefulness of the INTERMACS scale to predict outcomes after mechanical assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28(8): 827–833.

Weymann

Sabashnikov

Patil

et al . Minimally invasive access for central extracorporeal life support: how we do it. Artif Organs 2015; 39(2): 179–181.

Ponikowski

Voors

Anker

et al . 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 2016; 37(27): 2129–2200.

INTERMACS Executive Committee. INTERMACS adverse event definitions: adult and pediatric patients. 2013, https://www.uab.edu/medicine/intermacs/images/protocol_4.0/protocol_4.0_MoP/Appendix_A_INTERMACS_AE_Definitions__05152013.docx

10.

Pya

Bekbossynova

Jetybayeva

et al . Initial 3-year outcomes with left ventricular assist devices in a country with a nascent heart transplantation program. ESC Heart Fail 2016; 3(1): 26–34.

11.

Cowger

Stulak

Shah

et al . Impact of center left ventricular assist device volume on outcomes after implantation: an INTERMACS analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2017; 5(10): 691–699.

12.

Boyle

Ascheim

Russo

et al . Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30(4): 402–407.

13.

Weymann

Schmack

Sabashnikov

et al . Central extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression for the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock and lung failure. J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 9: 60.

14.

Zhigalov

Mashhour

Szczechowicz

et al . Clinical outcome and comparison of three different left ventricular assist devices in a high-risk cohort. Artif Organs 2018; 42(11): 1035–1042.

15.

Abdeen

Albert

Maxhera

et al . Implanting permanent left ventricular assist devices in patients on veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support: do we really need a cardiopulmonary bypass machine? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016; 50(3): 542–547.

16.

Fukuhara

Takeda

Garan

et al . Contemporary mechanical circulatory support therapy for postcardiotomy shock. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 64(4): 183–191.

17.

Takayama

Soni

Kalesan

et al . Bridge-to-decision therapy with a continuous-flow external ventricular assist device in refractory cardiogenic shock of various causes. Circ Heart Fail 2014; 7(5): 799–806.

18.

Flecher

Anselmi

Corbineau

et al . Current aspects of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a tertiary referral centre: determinants of survival at follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 46(4): 665–671.

19.

Werdan

Gielen

Ebelt

et al . Mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J 2014; 35(3): 156–167.

20.

Ouweneel

Schotborgh

Limpens

et al . Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42(12): 1922–1934.

21.

De By

TMMH

Mohacsi

Gahl

et al . The European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS) of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): second report. Eur J Cardiothoracic Surg 2018; 53(2): 309–316.

22.

Marasco

Murphy

et al . Extracorporeal life support bridge to ventricular assist device: the double bridge strategy. Artif Organs 2016; 40(1): 100–106.

23.

Han

Chung

Chen

et al . Different clinical course and complications in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 patients managed with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. ASAIO J 2017; 64(3): 318–322.

24.

Schibilsky

Haller

Lange

et al . Extracorporeal life support prior to left ventricular assist device implantation leads to improvement of the patients INTERMACS levels and outcome. PLoS ONE 2017; 12(3): e0174262.

25.

Popov

Hosseini

Zych

et al . Clinical experience with HeartWare left ventricular assist device in patients with end-stage heart failure. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93(3): 810–815.

26.

Weymann

Farag

Sabashnikov

et al . Central extracorporeal life support with left ventricular decompression to Berlin heart excor: a reliable “bridge to bridge” strategy in crash and burn patients. Artif Organs 2017; 41(6): 519–528.