Aly El-Banayosy

The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: Executive summary

Institutional Affiliations Co-chairs Feldman D: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Georgia Institute of Technology and Morehouse School of Medicine; Pamboukian SV: University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Teuteberg JJ: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Task force chairs Birks E: University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; Lietz K: Loyola University, Chicago, Maywood, Illinois; Moore SA: Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Morgan JA: Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan Contributing writers Arabia F: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Bauman ME: University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada; Buchholz HW: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital and Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Deng M: University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California; Dickstein ML: Columbia University, New York, New York; El-Banayosy A: Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania; Elliot T: Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, Virginia; Goldstein DJ: Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York; Grady KL: Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois; Jones K: Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Hryniewicz K: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; John R: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Kaan A: St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Kusne S: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Loebe M: Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas; Massicotte P: University of Alberta, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Moazami N: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Mohacsi P: University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland; Mooney M: Sentara Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Nelson T: Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; Pagani F: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Perry W: Integris Baptist Health Care, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Potapov EV: Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany; Rame JE: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Russell SD: Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland; Sorensen EN: University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland; Sun B: Minneapolis Heart Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Strueber M: Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany Independent reviewers Mangi AA: Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Petty MG: University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rogers J: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

Long-term follow-up of Thoratec ventricular assist device bridge-to-recovery patients successfully removed from support after recovery of ventricular function.

BACKGROUND In certain forms of severe heart failure there is sufficient improvement in cardiac function during ventricular assist device (VAD) support to allow removal of the device. However, it is critical to know whether there is sustained recovery of the heart and long-term patient survival if VAD bridging to recovery is to be considered over the option of transplantation. METHODS To determine long-term outcome of survivors of VAD bridge-to-recovery procedures, we retrospectively evaluated 22 patients with non-ischemic heart failure successfully weaned from the Thoratec left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or biventricular assist device (BVAD) after recovery of ventricular function at 14 medical centers. All patients were in imminent risk of dying and were selected for VAD support using standard bridge-to-transplant requirements. There were 12 females and 10 males with an average age of 32 (range, 12-49). The etiologies were 12 with myocarditis, 7 with cardiomyopathies (4 post-partum [PPCM], 1 viral [VCM], and 2 idiopathic [IDCM]), and 3 with a combination of myocarditis and cardiomyopathy. BVADs were used in 13 patients and isolated LVADs in 9 patients, for an average duration of 57 days (range, 11-190 days), before return of ventricular function and successful weaning from the device. Post-VAD survival was compared with 43 VAD bridge-to-transplant patients with the same etiologies who underwent cardiac transplantation instead of device weaning. RESULTS Nineteen of the 22 patients are currently alive. Three patients required heart transplantation, 1 within 1 day, 2 at 12 and 13 months post-weaning, and 2 died at 2.5 and 6 months. The remaining 17 patients are alive with their native hearts after an average of 3.2 years (range, 1.2-10 years). The actuarial survival of native hearts (transplant-free survival) post-VAD support is 86% at 1 year and 77% at 5 years, which was not significantly different (p = 0.94) from that of post-VAD transplanted patients, also at 86% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Long-term survival for bridge-to-recovery with VADs for acute cardiomyopathies and myocarditis is equivalent to that for cardiac transplantation. Recovery of the native heart, which can take weeks to months of VAD support, is the most desirable clinical outcome and should be actively sought, with transplantation used only after recovery of ventricular function has been ruled out.

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Advanced Heart Failure

Background—Use of wearable left ventricular assist systems (LVAS) in the treatment of advanced heart failure has steadily increased since 1993, when these devices became generally available in Europe. The aim of this study was to identify in an unselected cohort of LVAS recipients those aspects of patient selection that have an impact on postimplant survival. Methods and Results—Data were obtained from the Novacor European Registry. Between 1993 and 1999, 464 patients were implanted with the Novacor LVAS. The majority had idiopathic (60%) or ischemic (27%) cardiomyopathy; the median age at implant was 49 (16 to 75) years. The median support time was 100 days (4.1 years maximum). Forty-nine percent of the recipients were discharged from the hospital on LVAS; they spent 75% of their time out of the hospital. For a subset of 366 recipients, for whom a complete set of data was available, multivariate analysis revealed that the following preimplant conditions were independent risk factors for survival after LV...

Novacor left ventricular assist system versus heartmate vented electric left ventricular assist system as a long-term mechanical circulatory support device in bridging patients: A prospective study

OBJECTIVE Long-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge-to-transplantation procedure and bridge to recovery is of increasing importance. The implantable left ventricular assist devices, Novacor N100 left ventricular assist system (Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Berkeley, Calif) and TCI HeartMate vented electric left ventricular assist system (Thermo Cardiosystems Inc, Woburn, Mass), have proved to be efficient devices in bridge-to-transplantation settings and for prolonged support. The two systems were compared with regard to reliability and morbidity. METHODS Between October 1996 and March 1998, a prospective, single-center study was done that included 40 patients, 20 of whom were treated with the Novacor system and 20 of whom were treated with the HeartMate device. The diseases were mainly dilated cardiomyopathy (13/9) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (6/10). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding age, sex, preoperative clinical blood chemistry values, hemodynamic data, or risk factors. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to postoperative hemodynamics, organ recovery, out-of-hospital support, and survival to heart transplantation. Mean duration of support was 235.3 +/- 210 days for the Novacor group and 174.6 +/- 175 days for the HeartMate group and mean out-of-hospital support was 241 +/- 179 days and 166 +/- 152 days for the two groups, respectively. Neurologic complications occurred significantly more often among the Novacor group, whereas the HeartMate group had a higher prevalence of infections and technical problems, which was statistically significant. Survival to transplantation was 65% for the Novacor group and 60% for the HeartMate group. CONCLUSIONS Most patients had organ recovery with left ventricular assist system support, and a considerable number of patients in both groups underwent transplantation. However, both devices need revision to address the current problems, that is, thromboembolism for the Novacor device and infection and reliability for the HeartMate device.

Multicenter experience with the thoratec ventricular assist device in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND Patient size is 1 determinant in selecting a mechanical circulatory support device. The current pulsatile ventricular assist devices (VADs) were designed primarily for average-sized adults. The flexibility of the Thoratec VAD, however, has encouraged physicians to use it in a significant number of intermediate-sized older children and adolescents. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study in 58 children and adolescents <18 years (41 boys, 17 girls) who had been supported with the Thoratec VAD in 27 centers worldwide as of December 1999. Mean patient age was 13.8 years (range, 7 to 17 years), and mean patient weight and body surface area were 51.6 kg (range, 17 to 93 kg) and 1.5 m(2) (range, 0.7 to 2.1 m(2)), respectively. RESULTS Thirty-five patients (60%) survived to transplantation and 6 (10%) to recovery of the native heart, respectively; 38 were discharged from the hospital (66%). In the transplanted group, post-transplantation survival was 97%. Patient age and size were not associated with significantly increased risk for death or adverse events. Fifteen patients (27%) had 18 neurologic events during support, and 6 of these were fatal. Left atrial cannulation proved a risk factor for neurologic complications. CONCLUSIONS The Thoratec VAD has successfully been used in a large number of children and adolescents with similar morbidity and mortality results as with adults. The risk of neurologic complications may be increased, particularly in patients cannulated in the left atria.

European experience of DuraHeart™ magnetically levitated centrifugal left ventricular assist system

OBJECTIVE The DuraHeart (Terumo Heart, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA) is the worlds first approved magnetically levitated centrifugal left ventricular assist system designed for long-term circulatory support. We report the clinical outcomes of 68 patients implanted with the DuraHeart as a bridge to cardiac transplantation in Europe. METHODS Sixty-eight patients with advanced heart failure (six females), who were eligible for cardiac transplantation were implanted with the DuraHeart between January 2004 and July 2008. Median age was 58 (range: 29-74) years with 31% over 65 years. Thirty-three of these patients received the device as a part of the European multi-center clinical trial. Survival analyses were conducted for 68 patients and other safety and performance data were analyzed based on 33 trial patients. RESULTS Mean support duration was 242+/-243 days (range: 19-1148, median: 161) with a cumulative duration of 45 years. Thirty-five patients (51%) remain ongoing, 18 transplanted, 1 explanted, and 14 died during support with a median time to death of 62 days. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate during support was 81% at 6 months and 77% at 1 year. Of the 13 patients (21%) supported for >1 year, 4 supported for >2 years, 1 supported >3 years, 2 transplanted, 2 died, and 9 ongoing with a mean duration of 744+/-216 days (range: 537-1148, median: 651). Major adverse events included driveline/pocket infection, stroke, bleeding, and right heart failure. There was no incidence of pump mechanical failure, pump thrombosis, or hemolysis. CONCLUSIONS The DuraHeart was able to provide safe and reliable long-term circulatory support with an improved survival and an acceptable adverse event rate in advanced heart failure patients who were eligible for transplantation.

Single-center experience with the thoratec ventricular assist device☆☆☆

OBJECTIVE The Thoratec ventricular assist device (Thoratec Laboratories, Pleasanton, Calif) is widely accepted for univentricular and biventricular support in patients with various indications. The aim of this study is to describe our experience with implantation of the Thoratec ventricular assist device in more than 100 patients. METHODS From March 1992 to June 1998, 114 patients (98 men and 16 women; mean age, 47.9 years) received the Thoratec ventricular assist device for a mean duration of 44.9 days. The patients were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 included 84 patients in whom the system was applied as a bridge-to-transplant procedure. Group 2 included 17 patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock, and group 3 included 13 patients with cardiogenic shock of other causes. RESULTS Sixty-eight percent of patients in group 1 survived to transplantation with a posttransplant survival of 88%. The only independent risk factor affecting survival was age more than 60 years. Survivals in groups 2 and 3 were 47% and 31%, respectively. Main complications in all groups were bleeding, multiple organ failure, liver failure, sepsis, and neurologic disorders. CONCLUSIONS The Thoratec ventricular assist device has proved to be a reliable device for bridge to transplantation and postcardiotomy support. Further studies are required on patient selection and on patient and device management to reduce the incidence of complications in these patient populations.

Mechanical circulatory support: The Bad Oeynhausen experience

From September 1987 to February 1994, we treated 147 patients ranging between 11 and 82 years old with different mechanical circulatory support systems. The applied devices were the Bio-Medicus centrifugal pump in 61 patients, the Abiomed BVS System 5000 in 49 patients, the Thoratec ventricular assist device in 42 patients, and the Novacor left ventricular assist device in 7 patients. On the basis of indication for mechanical circulatory support, the patients were divided into three groups: group 1 consisted of 72 patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock; group 2, 50 patients in whom mechanical support was used as a bridge to cardiac transplantation; and group 3 (miscellaneous), 25 patients in cardiogenic shock resulting from acute myocardial infarction (n = 14), acute fulminant myocarditis (n = 3), primary graft failure (n = 2), right heart failure after heart transplantation (n = 3), and acute rejection (n = 3). Time of support ranged from 1 hour to 97 days (mean duration, 10.8 days). Seventy-five patients (51%) were discharged from the hospital. The best survival rate was achieved in group 2 with 72%, followed by group 1 with 44% and then group 3 with 28%. The most frequent complications in group 1 were bleeding (44%), multiple-organ failure (24%), neurologic disorders (18%), and acute renal failure (15%). In group 2, the major complications were bleeding (34%) and cerebrovascular disorders (22%) and in group 3, multiple-organ failure and sepsis (60%) and bleeding (32%).

Predictors of survival in patients bridged to transplantation with the Thoratec VAD device: a single-center retrospective study on more than 100 patients

BACKGROUND Careful patient selection markedly influences the outcome of patients who undergo mechanical circulatory support. Therefore, we tried to evaluate predictors of survival after implantation of the Thoratec ventricular assist device (VAD). METHODS Between October 1992 and January 2000, 104 patients (86 men, 18 women, aged 11 to 69 years) received the Thoratec VAD as a bridge to transplant. A total of 51 patients required left ventricular support (LVAD), 50 patients required biventricular support (BVAD), and 3 patients required total artificial heart implantation. We performed univariate analysis of 25 parameters with regard to their effect on survival and then applied a multivariate analysis to evaluate those factors that turned out to be marginally significant. We performed all analysis for the total collective as well as for the LVAD and BVAD sub-group. RESULTS The BVAD patients tended to have worse outcomes than did LVAD patients. We found no significant predictors of survival in either sub-group. In the total collective, however, we found the following pre-implant conditions were independent risk factors for survival after VAD implantation: patient age > 60 years (odds ratio [OR] 3.87, confidence interval [CI] 1.39 to 10.76), pre-implant ventilation (OR, 6.76; CI 2.42 to 18.84), and increased pre-implant total bilirubin (OR, 1.42; CL, 1.19 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS Transplant candidates on inotropic support should be considered for bridging to transplant as soon as bilirubin values start to increase or before respiratory function deteriorates and ventilation becomes necessary. In elderly patients, careful patient selection, particularly considering potential risk factors, might favorably affect their outcomes.

The european experience of Novacor left ventricular assist (LVAS) therapy as a bridge to transplant: A retrospective multi-centre study

OBJECTIVE Artificial heart devices have suffered from a negative press based on the early Jarvik experience of the 1980s. This is in stark contrast to realities of current left ventricular assist (LVAS) therapy. The Novacor N100 PC wearable left ventricular assist system (LVAS) was introduced in Europe in late 1993. This system allows implanted recipients to be completely autonomous with the system controlled by a small computer and powered by rechargeable batteries. This report represents the initial European experience with the Novacor LVAS. METHODS Since the system was introduced with regulatory approval as a commercial product, clinicians were not bound by the constraints of a study protocol and only minimal data were collected. This report presents the results of a retrospective study of 118 consecutive patients who had the LVAS implanted as a bridge to transplant, in 19 centres over the three year period ending in November 1996. RESULTS Mortality and morbidity varied widely between centres. The median implant time was 115 days (0-585 days) and 33% of patients returned home, supported by the LVAS. The overall survival on LVAS was 64%. The major causes of death were infection (14%) and MOF (6%). There were no significant device or system failures despite a cumulative patient experience of 24.8 years outside of a hospital environment. Patient selection and management varied greatly between centres and this was reflected in disparate outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Optimal selection and management of LVAS patients has still to be established. While the data available for this report lacked the detail necessary to demonstrate direct causal relationships between selection and management, it was clear from the inter-centre differences that these two factors have a major impact on outcomes. This early experience has directed attention towards improved management regimes. Given the results obtained from the best centres and the ability to discharge patients to lead near-normal lives in the community, the authors believe that the Novacor LVAS now offers a real therapeutic alternative for selected end-stage heart failure patients for whom a donor heart is unavailable or who are unsuitable for transplantation.