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.

Predictors of the right ventricular perforation caused by active‐fixation pacing and defibrillator leads: A single‐centre experience

New-onset Heart Failure after Permanent Right Ventricular Apical Pacing in Patients with Acquired High-Grade Atrioventricular Block and Normal Left Ventricular Function.

Quadripolar Left Ventricular Lead in 20 Cases with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Retrospective analysis of application of left ventricular active fixation lead in 26 cases

Complications of Cardiac Perforation and Lead Dislodgement with an MRI-Conditional Pacing Lead: a Korean Multi-Center Experience

Impact of lead position on tricuspid regurgitation, ventricular function, and heart failure exacerbation and mortality after cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. Preliminary results from the PACE-RVTR Registry

Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in-vitro bench testing

Incidence and Predictors of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Observation of a Chinese Population.

Risk Factors and Temporal Trends of Complications Associated With Transvenous Implantable Cardiac Defibrillator Leads.

Abstract 12929: Pacemaker Lead-induced Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients With or Without RV Dilatation

Relationship between left ventricular-right ventricular interlead distance and acute hemodynamic response during cardiac resynchronization therapy

Outcomes of Transvenous Lead Extraction in Patients with Lead Perforation: A Single‐center Experience

Impact of Interlead Distance on Immediate and Mid-Term Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Pacing Lead is More Easily Located at RVOT Septum in Patients with Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation.

A meta‐analysis of the distance between lead‐implanted site and tricuspid valve annulus with postoperative tricuspid regurgitation deterioration in patients with left bundle branch area pacing

Long-term Performance of Active Fixation Pacing Leads in Right Atrium

Percutaneous Management of Atrium and Lung Perforation: A Case Report

Abstract 8803: Bioprosthetic Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Associated with Device Lead Implantation

Atrial lead perforation early after device implantation—a case report and literature review

Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation Following Temporary or Permanent Endocardial Lead Insertion, and the Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

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