Abstract:Introduction The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) is increasing both as bridge-to-transplantation or destination therapy, considering the lack of heart donors for transplantation in advanced heart failure (AHF) population. Right ventricular post-implantation failure, major bleedings and infective events remain the principal adverse events in LVAD carriers, thus an accurate selection of candidates is needed. Purpose To identify between clinical, laboratory, standard and advanced (Speckle Tracking, STE) echocardiography, and right heart catheterization (RHC) indices, the best predictors of outcome after LVAD implantation. Materials and Methods We screened in our third-level center 30 patients with AHF, followed up from May 2013 to February 2022, for the assessment of LVAD implantation suitability. They all underwent a complete cardiological history collection, electrocardiography, standard and STE left ventricular (LV) and left atrial (LA) size and function assessment. Regarding the right ventricle, SIENA score parameters, including RV sphericity index, RV free wall longitudinal strain (LS), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), and 3D ejection fraction were used for exclude RV disfunction. RHC was performed on the same day of echocardiography. Follow-up was conducted at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months repeating all the assessments, for the occurrence of RV failure, all-causes mortality, hemorrhagic events and re-hospitalization for heart failure. With a univariate and multivariate statistical analysis, we went to test among all the parameters the possible predictors of outcome. Results The final population consists of 29 patients (93% male, mean age of 63±11 years), in NYHA class III or IV and a severe reduction of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF), in whom arterial hypertension and smoking, present or previous, were present in 58% and 65% of cases, respectively. The population was divided into two groups according to the occurrence of at least one cardiovascular event. 11 major events were recorded: including 4 hemorrhagic events, 3 all-causes mortality and 4 hospital admission for HF. No RV failure occurred in the first 12 months of follow-up. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of echocardiographic indices and RV function, including RVFAC or RV-FWLS. At univariate analysis (see Table 1), the only parameter able to predict major CV events was central venous pressure (CVP)/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) ratio, obtained by RHC, an index of balance between right and left heart filling pressure. Conclusions A careful application of SIENA score indices before LVAD implantation can significantly reduce the incidence of post-operative RV failure, as in our small population. Our results also confirmed the paramount role of RHC in the diagnostic work up of AHF.

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience

Real‐world data of patients affected by advanced heart failure treated with implantable cardioverter defibrillator and left ventricular assist device: Results of a multicenter observational study

Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation Outcomes In Patients With Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillators: A Case Series

Outcomes of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in patients with a left ventricular assist device: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Nosocomial Infections in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients

Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients Without Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

Impella as Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Patients

Eligibility of cardiac resynchronization therapy patients for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators

Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Refractory Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review of Patient Selection, Surgical Approaches, Complications and Future Perspectives

Outcomes and Complications after Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Long-term assist device patients admitted to ICU: Tips and pitfalls

Left ventricular assist devices versus medical management in ambulatory heart failure patients: An analysis of INTERMACS Profiles 4 and 5 to 7 from the ROADMAP study

Ventricular Arrhythmias in Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients—Current Diagnostic and Therapeutic Considerations

Feasibility of entirely subcutaneous ICD™ systems in patients with coronary artery disease

Predictors of Right vEntricular Failure aftER LVAD implantation: PREFER LVAD study

Left ventricular assist device and transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair in advanced heart failure: allies or enemies?

Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy in Patients With Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Different ECLS Pump Configurations for Temporary Right Ventricular Assist Device in LVAD Patients: A Retrospective Case–Control Study

A Rare Case of Left Ventricular Non-Compaction with Coronary Artery Anomaly Complicated by ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Subcutaneous Defibrillator Implantation

International experience using a durable, centrifugal-flow ventricular assist device for biventricular support

Influence of implant strategy on the transition from temporary left ventricular assist device to durable mechanical circulatory support