Predicting right ventricular failure in the modern, continuous flow left ventricular assist device era.

BACKGROUND: In the era of destination continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD), the decision of whether a patient will tolerate isolated LVAD support or will need biventricular support (BIVAD) can be challenging. Incorrect decision making with delayed right ventricular (RV) assist device implantation results in increased morbidity and mortality. Continuous flow LVADs have been shown to decrease pulmonary hypertension and improve RV function. We undertook this study to determine predictors in the continuous flow LVAD era that identify patients who are candidates for isolated LVAD therapy as opposed to biventricular support. METHODS: We reviewed demographic, hemodynamic, laboratory, and echocardiographic variables for 218 patients who underwent VAD implant from 2003 through 2011 (LVAD=167, BIVAD=51), during the era of continuous flow LVADs. RESULTS: Fifty preoperative risk factors were compared between patients who were successfully managed with an LVAD and those who required a BIVAD. Seventeen variables demonstrated statistical significance by univariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified central venous pressure>15 mmHg (OR 2.0, "C"), severe RV dysfunction (OR 3.7, "R"), preoperative intubation (OR 4.3, "I"), severe tricuspid regurgitation (OR 4.1, "T"), heart rate>100 (OR 2.0, Tachycardia-"T")-CRITT as the major criteria predictive of the need for biventricular support. Utilizing these data, a highly sensitive and easy to use risk score for determining RV failure was generated that outperformed other established risk stratification tools. CONCLUSIONS: We present a preoperative risk calculator to determine suitability of a patient for isolated LVAD support in the current continuous flow ventricular assist device era.

Rapid onset of fulminant myocarditis portends a favourable prognosis and the ability to bridge mechanical circulatory support to recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Fulminant myocarditis with cardiogenic shock is fatal without mechanical circulatory support. Once haemodynamic stability has been established with a ventricular assist device (VAD), the decision to wait for myocardial recovery as opposed to listing for an orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) can be difficult. We have undertaken this study to establish the criteria for determining the need for heart transplantation following VAD implant for fulminant myocarditis. METHODS: A total of 442 VADs were implanted between 1993 and 2011. Twenty-four VADs were implanted for fulminant myocarditis with refractory cardiogenic shock. We retrospectively analysed the variables and the pathology for this cohort. Patients who had a full recovery of myocardial function and subsequent VAD explant (Explant) were compared with those bridged to OHT. There was one acute death. RESULTS: There was no difference in the past medical history between the groups. Explant patients had a more acute onset of heart failure with a median of 7 days between the onset of symptoms and VAD implant, when compared with 22 days for OHT (P = 0.01). A rapid recovery in myocardial function was seen in the Explant group, with recovery of myocardial function (ejection fraction = 53 ± 24%) in 14 ± 7 days. Myocardial function was sustained for 5 years following the VAD explant. The female gender favoured myocardial recovery and VAD explantability. Two patients had giant cell myocarditis, neither of whom had a recovery of function, and they were bridged to heart transplant with a VAD. CONCLUSIONS: Fulminant myocarditis is a fatal condition without mechanical support. The rapid onset of symptoms is associated with a complete recovery of myocardial function and VAD explant. The absence of rapid recovery of myocardial function should prompt listing for a heart transplant.