Using pulsatility responses to breath-hold maneuvers to predict readmission rates in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients.
breath-hold maneuvers
continuous-flow LVADs
intra-cardiac hemodynamics
outcomes
pulsatility responses
Journal
Artificial organs
ISSN: 1525-1594
Titre abrégé: Artif Organs
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802778
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Oct 2023
11 Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
18
07
2023
received:
26
04
2023
accepted:
05
09
2023
medline:
11
10
2023
pubmed:
11
10
2023
entrez:
11
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Dynamic respiratory maneuvers induce heterogenous changes to flow-pulsatility in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients. We evaluated the association of these pulsatility responses with patient hemodynamics and outcomes. Responses obtained from HVAD (Medtronic) outpatients during successive weekly clinics were categorized into three ordinal groups according to the percentage reduction in flow-waveform pulsatility (peak-trough flow) upon inspiratory-breath-hold, (%∆P): (1) minimal change (%∆P ≤ 50), (2) reduced pulsatility (%∆P > 50 but <100), (3) flatline (%∆P = 100). Same-day echocardiography and right-heart-catheterization were performed. Readmissions were compared between patients with ≥1 flatline response (F-group) and those without (NF-group). Overall, 712 responses were obtained from 55 patients (82% male, age 56.4 ± 11.5). When compared to minimal change, reduced pulsatility and flatline responses were associated with lower central venous pressure (14.2 vs. 11.4 vs. 9.0 mm Hg, p = 0.08) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (19.8 vs. 14.3 vs. 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.03), lower rates of ≥moderate mitral regurgitation (48% vs. 13% vs. 10%, p = 0.01), lower rates of ≥moderate right ventricular impairment (62% vs. 25% vs. 27%, p = 0.03), and increased rates of aortic valve opening (32% vs. 50% vs. 75%, p = 0.03). The F-group (n = 28) experienced numerically lower all-cause readmissions (1.51 vs. 2.79 events-per-patient-year [EPPY], hazard-ratio [HR] = 0.67, p = 0.12), reduced heart failure readmissions (0.07 vs. 0.57 EPPY, HR = 0.15, p = 0.008), and superior readmission-free survival (HR = 0.47, log-rank p = 0.04). Syncopal readmissions occurred exclusively in the F-group (0.20 vs. 0 EPPY, p = 0.01). Responses to inspiratory-breath-hold predicted hemodynamics and readmission risk. The impact of inspiratory-breath-hold on pulsatility can non-invasively guide hemodynamic management decisions, patient optimization, and readmission risk stratification.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dynamic respiratory maneuvers induce heterogenous changes to flow-pulsatility in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients. We evaluated the association of these pulsatility responses with patient hemodynamics and outcomes.
METHODS
METHODS
Responses obtained from HVAD (Medtronic) outpatients during successive weekly clinics were categorized into three ordinal groups according to the percentage reduction in flow-waveform pulsatility (peak-trough flow) upon inspiratory-breath-hold, (%∆P): (1) minimal change (%∆P ≤ 50), (2) reduced pulsatility (%∆P > 50 but <100), (3) flatline (%∆P = 100). Same-day echocardiography and right-heart-catheterization were performed. Readmissions were compared between patients with ≥1 flatline response (F-group) and those without (NF-group).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 712 responses were obtained from 55 patients (82% male, age 56.4 ± 11.5). When compared to minimal change, reduced pulsatility and flatline responses were associated with lower central venous pressure (14.2 vs. 11.4 vs. 9.0 mm Hg, p = 0.08) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (19.8 vs. 14.3 vs. 13.0 mm Hg, p = 0.03), lower rates of ≥moderate mitral regurgitation (48% vs. 13% vs. 10%, p = 0.01), lower rates of ≥moderate right ventricular impairment (62% vs. 25% vs. 27%, p = 0.03), and increased rates of aortic valve opening (32% vs. 50% vs. 75%, p = 0.03). The F-group (n = 28) experienced numerically lower all-cause readmissions (1.51 vs. 2.79 events-per-patient-year [EPPY], hazard-ratio [HR] = 0.67, p = 0.12), reduced heart failure readmissions (0.07 vs. 0.57 EPPY, HR = 0.15, p = 0.008), and superior readmission-free survival (HR = 0.47, log-rank p = 0.04). Syncopal readmissions occurred exclusively in the F-group (0.20 vs. 0 EPPY, p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Responses to inspiratory-breath-hold predicted hemodynamics and readmission risk. The impact of inspiratory-breath-hold on pulsatility can non-invasively guide hemodynamic management decisions, patient optimization, and readmission risk stratification.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Artificial Organs published by International Center for Artificial Organ and Transplantation (ICAOT) and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Muthiah K, Gupta S, Otton J, Robson D, Walker R, Tay A, et al. Body position and activity, but not heart rate, affect pump flows in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2:323-330.
Jain P, Adji A, Emmanuel S, Robson D, Muthiah K, Macdonald PS, et al. Phenotyping of stable left ventricular assist device patients using noninvasive pump flow responses to acute loading transients. J Card Fail. 2021;27:642-650.
Muthiah K, Robson D, Prichard R, Walker R, Gupta S, Keogh AM, et al. Effect of exercise and pump speed modulation on invasive hemodynamics in patients with centrifugal continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:522-529.
Jain P, Muthiah K, Shehab S, Robson D, Hayward CS. Dynamic flow responses to expiratory maneuvers in left ventricular assist device patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2019;38:669-674.
Salamonsen RF, Mason DG, Ayre PJ. Response of rotary blood pumps to changes in preload and afterload at a fixed speed setting are unphysiological when compared with the natural heart. Artif Organs. 2011;35:E47-E53.
HeartWare. HeartWare HVAD System Instructions for Use. 2021.
Moscato F, Gross C, Maw M, Schlöglhofer T, Granegger M, Zimpfer D, et al. The left ventricular assist device as a patient monitoring system. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;10:221-232.
Kormos RL, Antonides CFJ, Goldstein DJ, Cowger JA, Starling RC, Kirklin JK, et al. Updated definitions of adverse events for trials and registries of mechanical circulatory support: a consensus statement of the mechanical circulatory support academic research consortium. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39:735-750.
Mazimba S, Ginn G, Mwansa H, Laja O, Jeukeng C, Elumogo C, et al. Pulmonary artery proportional pulse pressure (PAPP) index identifies patients with improved survival from the CardioMEMS implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor. Heart Lung Circ. 2021;30:1389-1396.
Mazimba S, Kennedy JLW, Zhuo D, Bergin J, Abuannadi M, Tallaj J, et al. Decreased pulmonary arterial proportional pulse pressure after pulmonary artery catheter optimization for advanced heart failure is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. J Card Fail. 2016;22:954-961.
Poelzl G, Ess M, Mussner-Seeber C, Pachinger O, Frick M, Ulmer H. Liver dysfunction in chronic heart failure: prevalence, characteristics and prognostic significance. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42:153-163.
Houston BA, Kalathiya RJ, Hsu S, Loungani R, Davis ME, Coffin ST, et al. Right ventricular afterload sensitivity dramatically increases after left ventricular assist device implantation: a multi-center hemodynamic analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:868-876.
Uriel N, Adatya S, Malý J, Kruse E, Rodgers D, Heatley G, et al. Clinical hemodynamic evaluation of patients implanted with a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device (HeartMate 3). J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:28-35.
Uriel N, Sayer G, Addetia K, Fedson S, Kim GH, Rodgers D, et al. Hemodynamic ramp tests in patients with left ventricular assist devices. JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4:208-217.
Morgan JA, Paone G, Nemeh HW, Murthy R, Williams CT, Lanfear DE, et al. Impact of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support on right ventricular function. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:398-403.
Kanemaru E, Yoshitani K, Fukushima S, Fujita T, Ohnishi Y. Effect of left ventricular assist device implantation on right ventricular function: assessment based on right ventricular pressure-volume curves. Artif Organs. 2020;44:1192-1201.
Rich JD, Gosev I, Patel CB, Joseph S, Katz JN, Eckman PM, et al. The incidence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with late right-sided heart failure in patients supported with an axial-flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017;36:50-58.
Couperus LE, Delgado V, Khidir MJH, Vester MPM, Palmen M, Fiocco M, et al. Pump speed optimization in stable patients with a left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2017;63:266-272.
Kapelios CJ, Charitos C, Kaldara E, Malliaras K, Nana E, Pantsios C, et al. Late-onset right ventricular dysfunction after mechanical support by a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1604-1610.
Takeda K, Takayama H, Colombo PC, Yuzefpolskaya M, Fukuhara S, Han J, et al. Incidence and clinical significance of late right heart failure during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1024-1032.
Goodwin M, Nemeh HW, Borgi J, Paone G, Morgan JA. Resolution of mitral regurgitation with left ventricular assist device support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;104:811-818.
Topilsky Y, Hasin T, Oh JK, Borgeson DD, Boilson BA, Schirger JA, et al. Echocardiographic variables after left ventricular assist device implantation associated with adverse outcome. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:648-661.
Flores AS, Essandoh M, Yerington GC, Bhatt AM, Iyer MH, Perez W, et al. Echocardiographic assessment for ventricular assist device placement. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:2139-2150.
Uriel N, Morrison KA, Garan AR, Kato TS, Yuzefpolskaya M, Latif F, et al. Development of a novel echocardiography ramp test for speed optimization and diagnosis of device thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: the Columbia ramp study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1764-1775.
Mehra MR, Uriel N, Naka Y, Cleveland JC Jr, Yuzefpolskaya M, Salerno CT, et al. A fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device-final report. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1618-1627.
Forest SJ, Bello R, Friedmann P, Casazza D, Nucci C, Shin JJ, et al. Readmissions after ventricular assist device: etiologies, patterns, and days out of hospital. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:1276-1281.
Hernandez RE, Singh SK, Hoang DT, Ali SW, Elayda MAA, Mallidi HR, et al. Present-day hospital readmissions after left ventricular assist device implantation: a large single-center study. Tex Heart Inst J. 2015;42:419-429.
Imamura T, Jeevanandam V, Kim G, Raikhelkar J, Sarswat N, Kalantari S, et al. Optimal hemodynamics during left ventricular assist device support are associated with reduced readmission rates. Circ Heart Fail. 2019;12:e005094.
Imamura T, Nguyen A, Kim G, Raikhelkar J, Sarswat N, Kalantari S, et al. Optimal haemodynamics during left ventricular assist device support are associated with reduced haemocompatibility-related adverse events. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21:655-662.
Uriel N, Burkhoff D, Rich JD, Drakos SG, Teuteberg JJ, Imamura T, et al. Impact of hemodynamic ramp test-guided HVAD speed and medication adjustments on clinical outcomes. Circ Heart Fail. 2019;12:e006067.
Gross C, Schima H, Schlöglhofer T, Dimitrov K, Maw M, Riebandt J, et al. Continuous LVAD monitoring reveals high suction rates in clinically stable outpatients. Artif Organs. 2020;44:E251-E262.
Salamonsen RF, Lim E, Moloney J, Lovell NH, Rosenfeldt FL. Anatomy and physiology of left ventricular suction induced by rotary blood pumps. Artif Organs. 2015;39:681-690.
Rocchi M, Fresiello L, Meyns B, Jacobs S, Gross C, Pauls JP, et al. A compliant model of the ventricular apex to study suction in ventricular assist devices. ASAIO J. 2021;67:1125-1133.
Hayward CS, Salamonsen R, Keogh AM, Woodard J, Ayre P, Prichard R, et al. Effect of alteration in pump speed on pump output and left ventricular filling with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J. 2011;57:495-500.
Imamura T, Burkhoff D, Rodgers D, Adatya S, Sarswat N, Kim G, et al. Repeated ramp tests on stable LVAD patients reveal patient-specific hemodynamic fingerprint. ASAIO J. 2018;64:701-707.
Addetia K, Uriel N, Maffessanti F, Sayer G, Adatya S, Kim GH, et al. 3D morphological changes in LV and RV during LVAD ramp studies. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018;11:159-169.
Amsallem M, Aymami M, Hiesinger W, Zeigler S, Moneghetti K, Marques M, et al. Right ventricular load adaptability metrics in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;157:1023-1033.
Cordtz J, Nilsson JC, Hansen PB, Sander K, Olesen PS, Boesgaard S, et al. Right ventricular failure after implantation of a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: early haemodynamic predictors. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;45:847-853.