Influence of aortic valve opening in patients with aortic insufficiency after left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVES Aortic valve insufficiency (AI) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation can potentially limit the success of mechanical circulatory support. We examined the prevalence of significant AI in the new generation of LVADs and analysed the role of aortic valve opening in the development of AI in these patients. METHODS Currently, 102 patients that received a continuous flow LVAD (cf-LVAD) between July 2009 and December 2013 are being treated in our outpatient clinic with an HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVDA) (n = 77) or HeartMate II (HMII, n = 25) and were included and analysed in a retrospective study. The mean age of the 12 female and 90 male patients was 54 ± 12 years. Ischaemic cardiomyopathy was diagnosed in 40% of patients. Echocardiographic measurements were reviewed before and after implantation. AI was considered significant if it was more than mild. RESULTS Mean LVAD support duration was 572 ± 437 days. Significant AI was found in 32 patients (31.4%). De novo AI occurred in mean after 183 ± 246 days of support. One patient presented severe AI and received an aortic valve replacement. A permanently closed aortic valve correlates with a greater prevalence of AI when compared with intermittent or complete opening of aortic valve (P = 0.004). Aetiology of the cardiomyopathy and the type of device had no influence on the development of AI. Smaller left ventricle end-diastolic diameter and lower body surface area were significantly associated with the development of aortic insufficiency in our cohort. CONCLUSION Aortic insufficiency has a high prevalence following assist device continuous flow support. Echocardiographic parameters are an integral part of ambulatory care of these patients and can guide the optimal setting for LVAD. An aortic valve that does not open should be avoided in order to prevent AI. Patients with HMII or HVAD did not show any differences terms of the prevalence of aortic insufficiency prevalence.

[1]  Priya Sharma,et al.  The development of aortic insufficiency in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients. , 2013, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  Karen May-Newman,et al.  Effect of Left Ventricular Assist Device Outflow Conduit Anastomosis Location on Flow Patterns in the Native Aorta , 2006, ASAIO journal.

[3]  Nir Uriel,et al.  Prevalence of de novo aortic insufficiency during long-term support with left ventricular assist devices. , 2010, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[4]  C. Otto,et al.  Calcific aortic stenosis--time to look more closely at the valve. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  S. Russell,et al.  Clinical management of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in advanced heart failure. , 2010, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[6]  Zhongjun J. Wu,et al.  Effects of Left Ventricular Assist Device Support and Outflow Graft Location Upon Aortic Blood Flow , 2004, ASAIO journal.

[7]  Karen May-Newman,et al.  Aortic valve pathophysiology during left ventricular assist device support. , 2010, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[8]  Susheel Kodali,et al.  Prevalence, Significance, and Management of Aortic Insufficiency in Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients , 2014, Circulation. Heart failure.

[9]  Robert L Kormos,et al.  Fifth INTERMACS annual report: risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. , 2013, The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation.

[10]  J. Rogers,et al.  Natural history and clinical effect of aortic valve regurgitation after left ventricular assist device implantation. , 2013, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[11]  Aly El-Banayosy,et al.  Development of Aortic Insufficiency in Patients Supported With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices , 2012, ASAIO journal.

[12]  Miyoko Endo,et al.  Less frequent opening of the aortic valve and a continuous flow pump are risk factors for postoperative onset of aortic insufficiency in patients with a left ventricular assist device. , 2011, Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society.

[13]  Jeffrey Teuteberg,et al.  Management of Aortic Insufficiency in the Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Population , 2014, Current Heart Failure Reports.

[14]  Chad E. Eckert,et al.  Durability of left ventricular assist devices: Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 2006 to 2011. , 2013, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  Francis D. Pagani,et al.  The Development of Aortic Insufficiency in Left Ventricular Assist Device-Supported Patients , 2010, Circulation. Heart failure.

[16]  F. Pagani,et al.  Physiologic and Pathologic Changes in Patients with Continuous-Flow Ventricular Assist Devices , 2009, Journal of cardiovascular translational research.

[17]  Ajit P Yoganathan,et al.  Elevated cyclic stretch alters matrix remodeling in aortic valve cusps: implications for degenerative aortic valve disease. , 2009, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.