Search

Background: Pump thrombosis is the most severe and acute complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy and treatment remains challenging. Whilst lysis therapy is often not successful, the exchange of the occluded LVAD is currently the most applied therapeutic treatment for this event. With this study we examine the effects of minimal-invasive LVAD exchange on the rate re-thrombosis and outcomes as well as adverse events in the study group. Methods: Between February 2004 and December 2015 more than 600 LVADs were implanted at our institution. We retrospectively studied a patient cohort of 41 patients who underwent LVAD exchange because of pump thrombosis at a single institution. Outcomes, rates of re-thrombosis and adverse events were analyzed. Results: Between February 2004 and December 2015, 87 exchanges of LVADs were performed at a single center. In 41 cases pump thrombosis was the reason for LVAD exchange. A total of 28 patient years (10,276 days) were analyzed. Average ICU stay was 15.8±20.4 days and average in-hospital stay 38.1±37.3 days after LVAD exchange. After thirty days the survival rate was 80.5%, 75.6% after 6 months and 70.7% one year after LVAD exchange. Out of the study cohort, three patients have successfully undergone heart transplantation. Twelve patients suffered a stroke postoperatively (29%). Twelve patients needed postoperative dialysis (29%). No technical complications of the VAD were recorded in the study group. Two patients underwent successful LVAD explantation due to myocardial recovery. One year after LVAD exchange, 14 patients underwent re-exchange due to pump thrombosis (34%). Eight patients suffered from a LVAD related infection out of which two patients were treated by pump exchange. A total of 12 patients died during the complete one year follow up of this study (29%). Four patients died in the second, two in the third and one in the fourth year after LVAD exchange. The remaining 17 patients are still ongoing on the device. Conclusions: It is generally feasible to treat pump thrombosis via LVAD exchange. Yet, the exchange procedure is not without risk and the risk of re-thrombosis (34%), stroke (29%), postoperative dialysis (29%) and perioperative complications remains high.

Growing worldwide incidences of end-stage heart failure and declining rates of cardiac transplants have given rise to the need for alternative treatment options, based on mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices such as left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). Technologically advanced LVADs such as the HVAD® (HeartWare®, Medtronic) facilitate safe and efficient treatment of heart failure patients with reduced post-operative complications, which is attributed to their considerably miniaturized size. This also facilitates the development and implementation of novel, minimally-invasive surgical techniques. The HVAD is a centrifugal pump, manufactured by HeartWare Inc., (Framingham, MA, USA) and subsequently by Medtronic Inc., (Minnesota, MN, USA), and has been approved for clinical application after receiving the CE Mark approval in 2008 and the FDA approval in 2012. Current research efforts are focused on further miniaturization alongside optimization of electronic and software controllers as well as implementation of the transcutaneous energy transfer (TET) technology. Salient features of the HVAD pump technology, clinical applications and future optimization strategies have been discussed in this article.

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (HVAD, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implantation is already a widely accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure (HF) but also still considered as a rescue therapy for patients suffering from cardiogenic shock. Standard LVAD implantation techniques are often associated with high mortality rates and can result in severe complications, like bleeding or right heart failure (RHF). The aim of our study was to assess the outcome of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 patients (so called “crash and burn” patients) undergoing a LVAD implantation by standard or less invasive surgery. Methods: We performed a retrospective evaluation of the 1-year outcome of 32 consecutive HF patients in cardiogenic shock, who underwent LVAD implantation in our institution. A total of 32 INTERMACS 1 patients were emergently operated. Fourteen patients (group A) were operated by using the “Hannover-VAD-technique”, which is widely known to be less invasive (upper hemisternotomy and a left-sided anterolateral thoracotomy). In contrast, 18 patients (group B) were implanted with LVAD by using the standard technique (full sternotomy). The primary endpoint was survival after 1 year without device-related re-operations. Secondary endpoints included combined analyses of rates of RHF, respiratory failure and bleeding during the trial period. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Survival after 1 year was higher in group A (69.7% vs. 50.0%). Technique-related adverse events (AEs) were also lower in the minimally invasive group, including a lower RHF (35.7% vs. 61.1%) and of further postoperative bleeding requiring surgery (14.3% vs. 33.3%). Conclusions: LVAD surgery in INTERMACS 1 patients is associated with remarkably good outcome considering the already very high mortality of those patients, and compared to previously reported surgical outcomes. Our study indicates that minimally invasive LVAD implantation in cardiogenic shock decreases mortality and the incidence of postoperative AEs.