OBJECTIVES: Ventricular assist device (VAD) for systemic right ventricular (RV) failure patients post-atrial switch, for transposition of the great arteries (TGA), and those with congenitally corrected TGA has proven useful to reduce transpulmonary gradient and bridge-to-transplantation. The purpose of this study is to describe our experience of VAD in systemic RV failure and our move towards concomitant tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective study of consecutive adult patients receiving HeartWare VAD for systemic RV failure between 2010 and 2019. From 2017, concomitant TVR was performed routinely. Demographic, clinical variables and echocardiographic and haemodynamic measurements pre- and post-VAD implantation were recorded. Complications on support, heart transplantation and survival rates were described. RESULTS: Eighteen patients underwent VAD implantation. Moderate or severe systemic tricuspid regurgitation was present in 83.3% of patients, and subpulmonic left ventricular impairment in 88.9%. One-year survival was 72.2%. VAD implantation was technically feasible and successful in all but one. Post-VAD, transpulmonary gradient fell from 16 (15–22) to 10 (7–13) mmHg (P = 0.01). Patients with TVR (n = 6) also demonstrated a reduction in mean pulmonary and wedge pressures. Furthermore, subpulmonic left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (44.3 vs 39.6 mm; P = 0.03) and function improved in this group. After 1 year of support, 72.2% of patients were suitable for transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: VAD is an effective strategy as bridge-to-candidacy and bridge-to-transplantation in patients with end-stage systemic RV failure. Concomitant TVR at the time of implant is associated with better early haemodynamic and echocardiographic results post-VAD.

Although left ventricular assist device (LVAD) improves functional capacity, on average LVAD patients are unable to achieve the aerobic capacity of normal healthy subjects or mild heart failure patients. The aim of this study was to examine if markers of right ventricular (RV) function influence maximal exercise capacity. This was a single-center prospective study that enrolled 20 consecutive HeartWare ventricular assist device patients who were admitted at the Freeman Hospital (Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom) for a heart transplant assessment from August 2017 to October 2018. Mean peak oxygen consumption (Peak VO₂) was 14.0 ± 5.0 ml/kg/min, and mean peak age and gender-adjusted percent predicted oxygen consumption (%VO₂) was 40.0% ± 11.5%. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on the median peak VO₂, so each group consisted of 10 patients (50%). Right-sided and pulmonary pressures were consistently higher in the group with poorer exercise tolerance. Patients with poor exercise tolerance (peak VO₂ below the median) had higher right atrial pressures at rest (10.6 ± 6.4 vs. 4.3 mmHg ± 3.2; p = 0.02) and the increase with passive leg raising was significantly greater than those with preserved exercise tolerance (peak VO₂ above the median). Patients with poor functional capacity also had greater RV dimensions (4.4 cm ± 0.5 vs. 3.7 cm ± 0.5; p = 0.02) and a higher incidence of significant tricuspid regurgitation (moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation in five patients in the poor exercise capacity group vs. none in the preserved exercise capacity group; p = 0.03). In conclusion, echocardiographic and hemodynamic markers of RV dysfunction discriminate between preserved and nonpreserved exercise capacity in HeartWare ventricular assist device patients.

Heart transplantation (HT) is the gold standard therapy for advanced heart failure (ADHF), and LVADs as destination therapy are an option in non-HT candidates. Most patients with ADHF never receive HT or an LVAD, so alternative strategies are needed. Intermittent levosimendan can reduce HF hospitalizations in ADHF patients in the short term. It is uncertain whether the results of the comparison of inotropes with older-generation LVADs would have the same outcomes in the current era of ADHF patients treated with levosimendan, who are less sick but older. In this paper, we compare the use of two therapeutic strategies for end-stage HF in patients who are not candidates for HT: repetitive intermittent levosimendan vs. LVAD as destination therapy. To do so, we compare two multicenter cohorts of real-life patients from Spain: the LEVO-D registry and the REGALAD registry. In total, 715 patients coming from the two registries were found: 403 from LEVO-D and 312 from REGALAD. Non-adjusted median survival was shorter for LEVO-D patients, with the benefit for the LVADs seen only after the first year of therapy. The survival advantage for the LVAD cohort was also true after analysis of the matched cohort but, as in the non-matched analysis, the survival benefit was mainly shown after one year of follow-up. We conclude that in elderly ADHF non-HT candidates, LVAD therapy offers significantly better long-term outcomes when compared to intermittent levosimendan; thus, it should be considered in carefully selected candidates. On the other hand, in poor LVAD candidates or highly comorbid patients, intermittent inotropic support with levosimendan could be a reasonable alternative to LVAD, as 1-year outcomes are similar.