ABSTRACT
In recent years, a significant improvement in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has occurred, and the continuous-flow devices currently used can last more than 10 years in a patient. Current studies report that the 5-year survival rate after LVAD implantation approaches that after a heart transplant. However, the outcome is influenced by the correct selection of the patients, as well as the choice of the optimal time for implantation. This review summarizes the indications, the red flags for prompt initiation of LVAD evaluation, and the principles for appropriate patient screening.
ABSTRACT
Cardiac transplantation represents the gold standard of treatment for selected patients with advanced heart failure who have poor functional capacity and prognosis despite guideline-directed medical therapy and device-based therapy. Proper patient selection and appropriate referral of patients to centers for the treatment of advanced heart failure are the first but decisive steps for screening patients eligible for cardiac transplantation. The eligibility and the decision to list for cardiac transplantation, even for patients with relative contraindications, are based on a multidisciplinary evaluation of a transplant team. This review will discuss the practical indications, the process of patient eligibility for cardiac transplantation, the principle of donor selection, as well as the surgical technique.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is an innovative therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction delivered by a cardiac implantable device (Optimizer Smart®). One of the most prominent periprocedural complications common to all cardiac implantable devices (CIDs) is tricuspid regurgitation (TR) due to the placement of the right ventricular endocardial leads. To date, no published studies have assessed the changes in the TR degree in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who received an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) after the implantation of cardiac contractility modulation therapy devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the implantation of the trans-tricuspid leads required to deliver CCM therapy on the severity of TR in patients with HFrEF who previously underwent ICD implantation. METHODS: We enrolled 30 HFrEF patients who underwent CCM therapy between November 2020 and October 2021. For all the patients, echocardiographic evaluations of TR were performed according to current guidelines 24 h before and six months after the Optimizer Smart® implant was applied. RESULTS: At the 6-month follow-up, the grade of TR remained unchanged compared to the preimplant grade. The value of the vena contracta (VC) of TR was 0.40 ± 0.19 cm in the preimplant period and 0.45 ± 0.21 cm at the 6-month follow-up (p = 0.33). Similarly, the TR proximal isovelocity surface area (PISA) radius value was unchanged at follow-up (0.54 ± 0.22 cm vs. 0.62 ± 0.20 cm; p = 0.18). No statistically significant difference existed between the preimplant VC and PISA radius values, irrespective of the device type. CONCLUSIONS: The implantation of right ventricular electrodes for the delivery of CCM therapy did not worsen tricuspid regurgitation in patients with HFrEF and ICD.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Virtually all patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction have a reduction of myocardial mechano-energetic efficiency (MEE). Cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is a novel therapy for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, in whom it improves the quality of life and functional capacity, reduces hospitalizations, and induces biventricular reverse remodeling. However, the effects of CCM on MEE and global longitudinal strain (GLS) are still unknown; therefore, this study aims to evaluate whether CCM therapy can improve the MEE of patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We enrolled 25 patients with HFrEF who received an Optimizer Smart implant (the device that develops CCM therapy) between January 2018 and January 2021. Clinical and echocardiographic evaluations were performed in all patients 24 h before and six months after CCM therapy. RESULTS: At six months, follow-up patients who underwent CCM therapy showed an increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (30.8 ± 7.1 vs. 36.1 ± 6.9%; p = 0.032) as well a rise of GLS 10.3 ± 2.7 vs. -12.9 ± 4.2; p = 0.018), of MEE (32.2 ± 10.1 vs. 38.6 ± 7.6 mL/s; p = 0.013) and of MEE index (18.4 ± 6.3 vs. 24.3 ± 6.7 mL/s/g; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: CCM therapy increased left ventricular performance, improving left ventricular ejection fraction, GLS, as well as MEE and MEEi.
ABSTRACT
Background: Patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction often cannot tolerate target doses of guideline-directed medical therapy due to symptomatic hypotension, renal dysfunction, and associated electrolyte abnormalities. While levosimendan can facilitate the titration of ß-blockers in patients with advanced HFrEF, it is unclear whether ambulatory levosimendan infusions would offer the same benefit. In this prospective study, we investigate the effects of intermittent ambulatory levosimendan infusions on the uptitration of disease-modifying drugs. Methods: We enrolled 37 patients with advanced HFrEF who received repeated ambulatory infusions of levosimendan between January 2018 and January 2021. The demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were acquired 24 h before the first and the last ambulatory levosimendan infusion. Results: At the 1 year follow-up, the enrolled patients were on significantly higher doses of guideline-directed medical therapy, including bisoprolol (3.2 ± 2.8 mg vs. 5.9 ± 4.1 mg; p = 0.02), sacubitril/valsartan (41.67 ± 32.48 mg vs. 68.5 ± 35.72 mg; p = 0.01), and eplerenone (12.7 ± 8.5 mg vs. 22.8 ± 13.6 mg; p = 0.03). Furthermore, a substantial decrease in the furosemide dose was observed (123.2 ± 32.48 mg vs. 81.6 ± 19.47 mg; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Levosimendan facilitates the optimization of disease-modifying heart failure medications in previously intolerant advanced HFrEF patients.
