Search

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF‐LVADs) is often related to GI angiodysplasia (GIAD). We previously reported data on VEGF inhibition with IV bevacizumab in the treatment of LVAD‐associated GIAD bleeding, and now present follow‐up data on patients treated with IV bevacizumab and/or low‐dose oral pazopanib. Methods: All consecutive adult patients with LVAD‐associated GIB from GIAD treated with bevacizumab or pazopanib, from July 20, 2017 to June 22, 2022, were included in the analysis. Data on hospitalizations, GI endoscopic procedures, and blood transfusions were obtained from first admission for GIB up to a median of 35.7 months following treatment initiation (range 1.3–59.8 months). Results: Eleven patients (91% male, mean 69.5 ± 8.9 years) were included. Eight patients (73%) received IV bevacizumab, two patients (18%) received oral pazopanib, and one patient (9%) received bevacizumab followed by pazopanib therapy. We observed a significantly decreased number of annualized hospitalizations for GIB (median difference − 2.87, p = 0.002), blood transfusions (median difference − 20.9, p = 0.01), and endoscopies (median difference − 6.95, p = 0.007) in patients pre‐ and post‐anti‐angiogenic therapy (bevacizumab and/or pazopanib). Similarly, a significant improvement in these clinical outcomes was noted in the bevacizumab group with decreased annualized hospitalizations (median difference − 2.75, p = 0.014), blood transfusions (median difference − 24.5, p = 0.047), and number of endoscopies (median differences −6.88, p = 0.006). Conclusion: Anti‐angiogenic therapy with IV bevacizumab and/or low‐dose oral pazopanib appears to provide benefits in patients with LVAD‐associated GIB with reduced hospitalizations, blood transfusions, and need for GI endoscopic procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last half‐century, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology has progressed from conceptual therapy for failed cardiopulmonary bypass weaning to an accepted destination therapy for advanced heart failure. The history of LVAD engineering is defined by an initial development phase, which demonstrated the feasibility of such an approach, to the more recent three major generations of commercial devices. In this review, we explore the engineering challenges of LVADs, how they were addressed over time, and the clinical outcomes that resulted from each major technological development. The first generation of commercial LVADs were pulsatile devices, which lacked the appropriate durability due to their number of moving components and hemocompatibility. The second generation of LVADs was defined by replacement of complex, pulsatile pumps with primarily axial, continuous‐flow systems with an impeller in the blood passageway. These devices experienced significant commercial success, but the presence of excessive trauma to the blood and in‐situ bearing resulted in an unacceptable burden of adverse events. Third generation centrifugal‐flow pumps use magnetically suspended rotors within the pump chamber. Superior outcomes with this newest generation of devices have been observed, particularly with respect to hemocompatibility‐related adverse events including pump thrombosis, with fully magnetically levitated devices. The future of LVAD engineering includes wireless charging foregoing percutaneous drivelines and more advanced pump control mechanisms, including synchronization of the pump flow with the native cardiac cycle, and varying pump output based on degree of physical exertion using sensor or advanced device‐level data triggers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) characterized by infiltration of noncaseating granulomas involving the heart with highly variable clinical manifestations that can include conduction abnormalities and systolic heart failure. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown significant promise in NICM, though little is known about its efficacy in patients with CS. Objective: To determine if CRT improved cardiac remodeling in patients with CS. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with a clinical or histological diagnosis of CS who underwent CRT implantation at the Mayo Clinic enterprise from 2000 to 2021. Baseline characteristics, imaging parameters, heart failure hospitalizations and need for advanced therapies, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were assessed. Results: Our cohort was comprised of 55 patients with 61.8% male and a mean age of 58.7 ± 10.9 years. Eighteen (32.7%) patients had definite CS, 21 (38.2%) had probable CS, while 16 (29.1%) had presumed CS, and 26 (47.3%) with extracardiac sarcoidosis. The majority underwent CRT‐D implantation (n = 52, 94.5%) and 3 (5.5%) underwent CRT‐P implantation with 67.3% of implanted devices being upgrades from prior pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators. At 6 months postimplantation there was no significant improvement in ejection fraction (34.8 ± 10.9% vs. 37.7 ± 14.2%, p =.331) or left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (58.5 ± 10.2 vs. 57.5 ± 8.1 mm, p =.236), though mild improvement in left ventricular end systolic diameter (49.1 ± 9.9 vs. 45.7± 9.9 mm, p <.0001). Within the first 6 months postimplantation, 5 (9.1%) patients sustained a heart failure hospitalization. At a mean follow‐up of 4.1± 3.7 years, 14 (25.5%) patients experienced a heart failure hospitalization, 11 (20.0%) underwent cardiac transplantation, 1 (1.8%) underwent left ventricular assist device implantation and 7 (12.7%) patients died. Conclusions: Our findings suggest variable response to CRT in patients with CS with no overall improvement in ventricular function within 6 months and a substantial proportion of patients progressing to advanced heart failure therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A combined right and left‐sided heart catheterization (RHC/LHC) protocol was recently reported to optimize patients supported by left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Using this platform, we sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of several hemodynamic indices, including left ventricular end‐diastolic pressure (LVEDP) and transaortic gradient (peak aortic pressure ‐ peak left ventricular pressure in systole, TAG). We evaluated all patients undergoing RHC/LHC at our institution from 2015 through 2018, and comprehensive clinical data were obtained. Primary end points were (1) a composite outcome that included hospitalization or death and (2) 1‐year overall survival after catheterization. Forty‐two patients were included in the analysis. Optimization resulted in normalization of hemodynamic parameters; all variables were significantly improved from baseline (P ≤.05). On univariate modeling, final LVEDP was associated with the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2 per 1‐mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 1.1‐1.3; P =.002). After adjusting for LVAD speed, TAG, and cardiac index in a multivariate model, the association between LVEDP and the composite end point remained significant (HR, 1.2 per 1‐mm Hg increase; 95% CI, 1.1‐1.4; P =.001). In the setting of LVAD support, inadequate LV unloading was a significant marker of poor outcomes with time, suggesting that LVEDP is a central prognostic marker in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Cardiac pacing from the right ventricular apex is associated with detrimental long-term effects and nonapical pacing locations may be associated with improved outcomes. There is little data regarding complications with nonapical lead positions. The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcomes and lead-related complications associated with differing ventricular lead tip position. Methods and results All adult patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation from 2004 to 2014 were included if they had postprocedure chest radiographs amenable to lead position determination. Long-term outcomes and lead-related complication rates were recorded. These were compared at 5 years between: (1) apical and septal leads, (2) apical and nonseptal nonapical (NSNA), and (3) apical and septal with >40% ventricular pacing. We retrospectively evaluated 3,450 patients, which included 238 with a septal position and 733 with NSNA lead positions. Septal lead position was associated with a lower mortality compared to apical leads (24% vs. 31%, P = 0.02). In patients with greater than 40% pacing, septal leads were associated with significantly higher rates of incident atrial fibrillation compared to apical leads (49% vs. 34%, P = 0.04). NSNA positions were associated with a significantly higher rate of lead dislodgement (4% vs. 2%, P = 0.005) and need for revision (8% vs. 5%, P = 0.005). Conclusions Septal pacemaker lead position is associated with a lower mortality compared to apically placed leads, but a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with higher percentage ventricular pacing. NSNA lead locations are associated with more complications and should be avoided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]