Percutaneous left ventricular assist device as a short-term mechanical circulatory support before heart transplantation in patients with high pre-transplant pulmonary hypertension (series of clinical cases)

Federation In certain categories of patients with end-stage heart failure (HF), short-term mechanical circulatory support (MSC) is successfully used as a mechanical «bridge» to heart transplantation (HTx). In predominantly left-ventricular (LV) dysfunction, the use of isolated coronary artery bypass, especially amidst high pulmonary hypertension (PH), seems to be a more physiological method of short-term MSC.

Objective: to present the results of a series of clinical cases of the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) before HTx in potential recipients with predominantly LV dysfunction and concomitant high PH.

Materials and methods. Three potential heart recipients with predominantly left-sided HF and high pre-transplant PH (pulmonary vascular resistance, PVR, 4.7–6.6 Wood units) who required MSC due to progression of hemodynamic disorders were included in the study. A standard venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannula (26 F) was used for percutaneous left atrial-femoral artery (LA–FA) bypass. The cannula was passed from the transfemoral route through the interatrial septum into the left atrial cavity. A paracorporeal centrifugal pump provided blood injection through a standard arterial ECMO cannula (15 F).

Results. pLVAD unloaded the left ventricle effectively (PCWP reduced from 27–32 to 15–20 mmHg), reduced pre-transplant PH (mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) reduced from 45–53 to 28–33 mmHg) and improved systemic hemodynamics (cardiac index (CI) increased from 1.8–1.9 to 2.1–2.6 l/min/m² and mean arterial pressure (mAP) from 56–59 to 70–75 mmHg). All these created the prerequisites for subsequent successful HTx. Against the background of pLVAD, transpulmonary pressure gradient (TPG) decreased from 15–25 to 13–15 mmHg, and PVR decreased from 4.7–6.6 to 2.7–3.4 Wood units. pLVAD flow rate was 2.9–3.8 L/min or 1.38–1.83 L/min/m² at 4700–7100 rpm. pLVAD duration ranged from 4 (n = 1) to 7 (n = 2) days. All patients underwent successful HTx.

Conclusion. pLVAD is a highly effective method of short-term MSC in potential recipients with predominantly LV dysfunction and concomitant high PH, leading to rapid regression of the dysfunction against the background of left ventricular unloading. This short-term MSC technique can be successfully realized using standard ECMO cannulas and centrifugal pumps of any modification, without requiring additional special equipment.

1. Brown LJ, Estep JD. Temporary percutaneous mechanical circulatory support in advanced heart failure. Heart Failure Clin. 2016; 12: 385–398.

2. Reich H, Ramzy D, Moriguchi J et al. Acceptable postheart transplant outcomes support temporary MCS prioritization in the New OPTN/UNOS heart allocation policy. Transplant Proc. 2021; 53: 353–357.

3. Gonzales MH, Acharya D, Lee S et al. Improved survival after heart transplantation in patients bridged with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in new allocation system. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021; 40: 149–157.

4. Xie A, Forrest P, Loforte A. Left ventricular decompression in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019; 8: 9–18.

5. Smith L, Peters A, Mazimba S et al. Outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock treated with TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device: importance of support indication and definitive therapies as determinants of prognosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 92: 1173– 1181.

6. Kar B, Adkins LE, Civitello AB et al. Clinical experience with the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device. Tex Haert Inst J. 2006; 33 (2): 111–115.

7. Bruckner BA, Jacob LP, Gregoric ID et al. Clinical experience with the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device as bridge to cardiac transplantation. Tex Heart Inst J. 2008; 35: 447–450.

8. Gregoric ID, Jacob LP, La Francesca S et al. The TandemHeart as a bridge to a long-term axial-flow left ventricular assist device. Tex Heart Inst J. 2008; 35: 125– 129.

9. Poptsov VN, Spirina EA, Slobodyannik VV. Sposob gemodinamicheskoy razgruzki levogo zheludochka pri provedenii perifericheskoy veno-arterial’noy ekstrakorporal’noy membrannoy oksigenatsii (Patent na izobretenie № 2526880, zaregistrirovano 03.07.2014 g.).

10. Poptsov VN, Spirina EA, Slobodyannik VV, Zakharevich VM, Eremeeva OA, Masyutin SA. Chreskozhnoe transfemoral’noe drenirovanie levogo predserdiya kak metod ob’’emnoy razgruzki levogo zheludochka pri provedenii perifericheskoy veno-arterial’noy membrannoy oksigenatsii u potentsial’nykh retsipientov serdtsa. Vestnik transplantologii i iskusstvennykh organov. 2013; 15 (4): 70–83.

11. Viera JL, Ventura HO, Mehra MR. Mechanical circulatory support in advanced heart failure: 2022 and beyond. Progress in Cardiovasc Dis. 2020; 63: 630–639.

12. Hebert M, Noly PE, Lamarche Y et al. Early and longterm outcomes after direct bridge-to-transplantation with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Heart Surg Forum. 2021; 24: E1033–E1042.

13. Hess NR, Hickey GW, Sultan I, Kilic A. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation bridge to heart transplantation: trends following the allocation change. J Card Surg. 2020 Oct 14. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15118.

14. Guglin M, Zucker MJ, Neumann FJ. Venoarterial ECMO for adults: JACC scientific expert panel. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019; 73: 698–716.

15. Tepper S, Masood MF, Baltazar Garsia M et al. Left ventricular unloading by Impella device versus surgical vent during extracorporeal life support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 104: 861–867.

16. Ando M, Garan AR, Takayama H et al. A continuousflow external ventricular assist device for cardiogenic shock: evolution over 10 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018; 156: 157–165.

17. Thiele H, Sick P, Boudriot T, Diederich KW et al. Randomized comparison of intra-aortic balloon support with a percutaneous left ventricular assist device in patients with revascularized acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1276–1283.

18. Rajdev S, Krishnan P, Irani A et al. Clinical application of prophylactic percutaneous left ventricular assist device (TandemHeart) in high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention using an arterial preclosure technique: single-center experience. J Invasive Cardiol. 2008; 20: 67–72.

19. Sharma AB, Kovacic JC, Kini AS. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device devices. Intervent Cardiol Clin. 2012; 1: 509–622.

20. Alli OO, Singh IM, Holmes DR et al. Percutaneous left ventricular assist device with TandemHeart for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the Mayo clinic experience. Catheterization Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80: 726–734.

21. Khalife W, Kar B. The TandemHeart pLVAD in the treatment of acute fulminant myocarditis. Tex Heart Inst J. 2007; 34: 209–213.

22. Gregoric ID, Bruckner BF, Jacob L et al. Techniques and complication of TandemHeart ventricular assist device insertion during cardiac procedure. ASAIO J. 2009; 55: 251–254.

23. Kreidieh B, Gray WA. The road to support is paved with good interventions: vascular complications of percutaneous LVAD use. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 95: 317–318.

24. Patel N, Sharma A, Dalia T et al. Vascular complications associated with percutaneous left ventricular assist device placement: a 10-year US perspective. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020; 95: 309–316.

25. Kurihara C, Kawabori M, Suguira T et al. Bridging to a long-term ventricular assist device with short-term mechanical circulatory support. Artificial Organs J. 2018; 42: 589–596.