scholarly journals Echocardiography from a transhepatic approach in left ventricular assist device patients with difficult transthoracic imaging

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mihai Strachinaru ◽  
Alexander Hirsch ◽  
Daniel Bowen ◽  
Kadir Caliskan

Abstract Background Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly used in the treatment of end-stage heart failure. One important limitation in the follow-up of these patients is the very difficult echocardiographic image, because of the interposition of implanted materials. Case summary  We present here a case series of LVAD patients with severely limited transthoracic echocardiographic windows in whom the echocardiographic analysis of the left and right ventricular function could be obtained from a very unusual approach, using a right intercostal transhepatic window, allowing visualization of the heart chambers and quantification of function even in these very challenging cases. In one case, the result was confirmed by computed tomography. In the second case, computed tomography images were unreliable because of strong artefacts from the LVAD system and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator leads, but the transhepatic approach still provided sufficient image quality in order to allow the imaging follow-up of the patient. In the third case, the transhepatic window was the only approach that provided echocardiographic images, and due to the good visualization of the heart cavities, this imaging technique was considered sufficient for follow-up studies in this stable subject with LVAD as destination therapy. Discussion  The transhepatic window may represent a good alternative in selected LVAD patients with very difficult acoustic access in traditional transthoracic views. Modified or alternate echocardiographic windows may reduce the need for invasive procedures (transoesophageal echocardiography) or imaging methods using radiations.

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1160-1165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus Mueller ◽  
Christoph Hoermandinger ◽  
Gregor Richter ◽  
Johanna Mulzer ◽  
Dmytro Tsyganenko ◽  
...  

Abstract OBJECTIVES Various trials have assessed the outcome and reliability of the HeartWare HVAD (HW) and HeartMate 3 (HM3) left ventricular assist devices. A direct comparison of clinical outcomes and of the complication profile of these 2 left ventricular assist devices is lacking. We present a retrospective analysis of patients supported with HM3 and HW as a left ventricular assist device. METHODS Preoperative data, complications and outcomes including a 1-year follow-up of patients supported with the HM3 and HW in a single centre were retrospectively analysed. Both pumps were implanted on- or off-pump, employing standard and minimally invasive techniques. For logistic reasons, the 2 device types were implanted in an alternating manner, thereby reducing the systematic bias for pump selection. We considered this to be an appropriate approach, as no differences in respect of survival or the complication profile of the two device types have been demonstrated. Anticoagulation was similar in patients with both pumps according to our anticoagulation protocol, with a target international normalized ratio of 2.5–3.0, a home monitoring system and blood pressure management with a mean arterial target pressure of 70–80 mmHg. RESULTS Between October 2015 and April 2017, 100 patients underwent implantation of the HW and 100 patients underwent implantation of the HM3. The median time on the device was 0.98 years (range 0–2.23 years). The median age was 58.5 (51–65) versus 57 (49–64) years (P = 0.456); the number of male patients was 87 versus 88 (P = 0.831). Of the HW patients, 73% were rated as having an INTERMACS level I or II, compared to 57% of the HM3 patients (P = 0.018). There were no further differences in preoperative data. A total of 14 patients had pre-, intra- or post-pump blood flow obstruction in the HW group versus 4 in the HM3 group [hazard ratio (HR) 2.5 (0.7–8.8), P = 0.103]. There were no differences regarding gastrointestinal bleeding [HR 1.25 (0.56–2.64), P = 0.624] or driveline infection (0.68 vs 0.8 events per patient-year, P = 0.0789). The incidence of ischaemic stroke was similar in both groups [HR 0.72 (0.25–2.09), P = 0.550]. Cerebral bleeding was more frequent in patients supported with HW [HR 6.79 (1.43–32.20), P = 0.016]. The incidence of cerebrovascular accidents, on the other hand, was similar in both groups [HR 1.85 (0.83–4.19), P = 0.13]. The incidence of haemocompatibility-related adverse events, however, was significantly higher in the HW group (113 points corresponding to 1.28 events per patient-year versus 69 points corresponding to 0.7 events per patient-year, P < 0.001). The 1-year survival was similar in both groups [62.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.53–0.73) vs 66.7%, 95% CI (0.58–0.767), P = 0.372]. CONCLUSIONS Our data show that the complication profile differs between the 2 pumps, but that early survival is comparable.


Perfusion ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Argiriadou ◽  
Kalliopi Megari ◽  
Polychronis Antonitsis ◽  
Mary H. Kosmidis ◽  
Christos Papakonstantinou ◽  
...  

Concerns about the potential impact of the non-pulsatile circulation pattern generated by the new generation axial-flow left ventricular assist devices on neurocognitive function led us to evaluate a patient in whom a Jarvik 2000 pump was implanted. We assessed the patient’s baseline neurocognitive function preoperatively as well as at 1-month and 6-month follow-up, using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. A slight improvement in circumscribed neurocognitive domains was noted, with no evidence of further decline at the end of a 6-month follow-up period.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document