Concept: Ventricular assist device
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have been used as an effective therapeutic option in patients with advanced heart failure, either as a bridge to transplantation, as destination therapy, or in some patients, as a bridge to recovery.
There is much interest in form-fitting, low-modulus, implantable devices or soft robots that can mimic or assist in complex biological functions such as the contraction of heart muscle. We present a soft robotic sleeve that is implanted around the heart and actively compresses and twists to act as a cardiac ventricular assist device. The sleeve does not contact blood, obviating the need for anticoagulation therapy or blood thinners, and reduces complications with current ventricular assist devices, such as clotting and infection. Our approach used a biologically inspired design to orient individual contracting elements or actuators in a layered helical and circumferential fashion, mimicking the orientation of the outer two muscle layers of the mammalian heart. The resulting implantable soft robot mimicked the form and function of the native heart, with a stiffness value of the same order of magnitude as that of the heart tissue. We demonstrated feasibility of this soft sleeve device for supporting heart function in a porcine model of acute heart failure. The soft robotic sleeve can be customized to patient-specific needs and may have the potential to act as a bridge to transplant for patients with heart failure.
Background Mechanical circulatory support with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for patients with advanced heart failure. We compared a newer LVAD design (a small intrapericardial centrifugal-flow device) against existing technology (a commercially available axial-flow device) in patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation. Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized trial involving 446 patients who were assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to the study (centrifugal-flow) device or the control (axial-flow) device. Adults who met contemporary criteria for LVAD implantation for permanent use were eligible to participate in the trial. The primary end point was survival at 2 years free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. The trial was powered to show noninferiority with a margin of 15 percentage points. Results The intention-to treat-population included 297 participants assigned to the study device and 148 participants assigned to the control device. The primary end point was achieved in 164 patients in the study group and 85 patients in the control group. The analysis of the primary end point showed noninferiority of the study device relative to the control device (estimated success rates, 55.4% and 59.1%, respectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper confidence limit, 12.56 percentage points; P=0.01 for noninferiority). More patients in the control group than in the study group had device malfunction or device failure requiring replacement (16.2% vs. 8.8%), and more patients in the study group had strokes (29.7% vs. 12.1%). Quality of life and functional capacity improved to a similar degree in the two groups. Conclusions In this trial involving patients with advanced heart failure who were ineligible for heart transplantation, a small, intrapericardial, centrifugal-flow LVAD was found to be noninferior to an axial-flow LVAD with respect to survival free from disabling stroke or device removal for malfunction or failure. (Funded by HeartWare; ENDURANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01166347 .).
Shared decision making helps patients and clinicians elect therapies aligned with patients' values and preferences. This is particularly important for invasive therapies with considerable trade-offs.
Background We observed an apparent increase in the rate of device thrombosis among patients who received the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device, as compared with preapproval clinical-trial results and initial experience. We investigated the occurrence of pump thrombosis and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels, LDH levels presaging thrombosis (and associated hemolysis), and outcomes of different management strategies in a multi-institutional study. Methods We obtained data from 837 patients at three institutions, where 895 devices were implanted from 2004 through mid-2013; the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 55±14 years. The primary end point was confirmed pump thrombosis. Secondary end points were confirmed and suspected thrombosis, longitudinal LDH levels, and outcomes after pump thrombosis. Results A total of 72 pump thromboses were confirmed in 66 patients; an additional 36 thromboses in unique devices were suspected. Starting in approximately March 2011, the occurrence of confirmed pump thrombosis at 3 months after implantation increased from 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 3.4) to 8.4% (95% CI, 5.0 to 13.9) by January 1, 2013. Before March 1, 2011, the median time from implantation to thrombosis was 18.6 months (95% CI, 0.5 to 52.7), and from March 2011 onward, it was 2.7 months (95% CI, 0.0 to 18.6). The occurrence of elevated LDH levels within 3 months after implantation mirrored that of thrombosis. Thrombosis was presaged by LDH levels that more than doubled, from 540 IU per liter to 1490 IU per liter, within the weeks before diagnosis. Thrombosis was managed by heart transplantation in 11 patients (1 patient died 31 days after transplantation) and by pump replacement in 21, with mortality equivalent to that among patients without thrombosis; among 40 thromboses in 40 patients who did not undergo transplantation or pump replacement, actuarial mortality was 48.2% (95% CI, 31.6 to 65.2) in the ensuing 6 months after pump thrombosis. Conclusions The rate of pump thrombosis related to the use of the HeartMate II has been increasing at our centers and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality.
Although current guidelines emphasize the importance of social support to the success of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy, few studies examine the influence of the caregiver on patient outcomes or quantify the impact of LVAD caregiving on caregiver outcomes. The purpose of this analysis was to identify patient and caregiver determinants of patient quality of life (QOL) and caregiver strain in response to LVAD therapy.
Advances in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy have resulted in increasing numbers of adult LVAD recipients in the community. However, device failure, stroke, bleeding, LVAD thrombosis and systemic infection can be life-threatening emergencies. Currently, four LVAD systems are implanted in six UK transplant centres, each of which provides device-specific information to local emergency services. This has resulted in inconsistent availability and content of information with the risks of delayed or inappropriate decision-making. In order to improve patient safety, a consortium of UK healthcare professionals with expertise in LVADs developed universally applicable prehospital emergency algorithms. Guidance was framed as closely as possible on the standard ABCDE approach to the assessment of critically ill patients.
Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are widely used both as a bridge to heart transplant and as destination therapy in advanced heart failure. Although heart failure is common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), little is known about outcomes after LVAD implantation in this population.
Little is known about the clonality of Staphylococcus epidermidis in the United States, although it is the predominant pathogen in infections involving prosthetic materials, including ventricular assist devices (VADs).
The HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD) is a new generation centrifugal flow VAD recently introduced in Canada. The objective of this study was to compare the HVAD device to the HeartMate II (HMII) axial flow device. Very few studies have compared clinical outcomes between newer generation VADs.