Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Jan;99(1):360-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.07.061. Epub 2014 Nov 14.

Bridge to removal: a paradigm shift for left ventricular assist device therapy

Affiliations
Review

Bridge to removal: a paradigm shift for left ventricular assist device therapy

Craig H Selzman et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Ventricular assist devices have become standard therapy for patients with advanced heart failure either as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy. Despite the functional and biologic evidence of reverse cardiac remodeling, few patients actually proceed to myocardial recovery, and even fewer to the point of having their device explanted. An enhanced understanding of the biology and care of the mechanically supported patient has redirected focus on the possibility of using ventricular assist devices as a bridge to myocardial recovery and removal. Herein, we review the current issues and approaches to transforming myocardial recovery to a practical reality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bridge to removal. LVADs are placed in patients with pathologic remodeling and development of advanced heart failure. After implantation, the heart undergoes variable levels of reverse remodeling. If inadequate (non-responder), then continued support and/or transplantation remain the mainstay of therapy. If cellular, metabolic, architectural, and functional reversal occurs to normal, then these patients exhibit myocardial recovery. Another, perhaps more common group, are those patients that demonstrate functional improvement without structural and/or molecular normalization. These latter two groups (in orange) are both considered “responders” to therapy and are candidates for consideration of LVAD removal.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Highest left ventricular ejection fraction achieved after LVAD. (A) Highest EF achieved after LVAD unloading. (B) Changes in LVEF over time with highest EF achieved 30%–39% (group 3). (C) Changes in LVEF over time for patients with highest LVEF achieved >40% (group 4). Data is presented as percentages, means, and confidence intervals. *p<0.01 vs Pre-LVAD. Reproduced from [17] with permission.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Apical closure without plug. Intraoperative view demonstrating (A) primary closure associated with removal of the Jarvik 2000 Flowmaker LVAD. The prolene suture is seen as it goes through felt strips that include the flexible sewing ring. (B) Primary closure with felt strips following removal of the rigid HeartWare sewing ring. Notice the arterial cannula in the transected outflow graft.

References

    1. Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, et al. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):885–896. - PubMed
    1. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(20):1435–1443. - PubMed
    1. Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, et al. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(23):2241–2251. - PubMed
    1. Birks EJ, George RS, Firouzi A, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients bridged to recovery versus patients bridged to transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144(1):190–196. - PubMed
    1. Birks EJ, George RS, Hedger M, et al. Reversal of severe heart failure with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device and pharmacological therapy: A prospective study. Circulation. 2011;123(4):381–390. - PubMed

Publication types