Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences

REVIEW ARTICLE
Year
: 2020  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 216--225

Left Ventricle Can't Stay Alone – A Review of Right Ventricular Failure Post-Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation


Manoj Kumar Sahu1, Prateek Vaswani2,  
1 Intensive Care for CTVS, CT Centre, New Delhi, India
2 Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Manoj Kumar Sahu
Intensive care for CTVS, CT Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi - 110 029
India

Abstract

Background: Increasing incidence of heart failure with end-stage heart disease and limited availability of donor heart for transplantation made mechanical assist devices a lucrative option. Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is used increasingly in recent years as a bridge to transplant and also as destination therapy with significantly improved outcomes. Implantation of LVAD improves the left heart systolic dysfunction, but its reliance on adequate right ventricular (RV) function with proposed risk of aggravating RV dysfunction may result in dismal outcomes if not intervened timely. Methodology: MeSH database was searched for LVAD, RV failure (RVF), RV anatomy and physiology, assessment for RV functions from 1990 till current year and was included in the narrative review. Results: The above searched English Medical Literature revealed that RVF contributed to dismal outcomes post-LVAD implantation. The absence of consistent defining criteria makes it hard to determine RVF. RVF leads to impaired LVAD flows, difficulty in weaning from cardio-pulmonary bypass, decreased tissue perfusion, and multi-organ failure, increasing the morbidity and mortality. Ideal durable mechanical assist devices to support the RV are still not available. Conclusion: This review highlights the details about perioperative assessment for RV dysfunction, criteria for RVF, investigational modalities to assess RV function, and management of RVF following LVAD implantation. Early identification, treatment, and prevention of RVF are of paramount importance and understanding this is a pivotal first step in successfully managing RVF post-LVAD implantation. The development of durable right-sided mechanical support would improve the scope of care of LVAD patients developing persistent RVF.



How to cite this article:
Sahu MK, Vaswani P. Left Ventricle Can't Stay Alone – A Review of Right Ventricular Failure Post-Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation.J Pract Cardiovasc Sci 2020;6:216-225


How to cite this URL:
Sahu MK, Vaswani P. Left Ventricle Can't Stay Alone – A Review of Right Ventricular Failure Post-Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation. J Pract Cardiovasc Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Apr 17 ];6:216-225
Available from: https://www.j-pcs.org/text.asp?2020/6/3/216/304528


Full Text



 Introduction with Magnitude of Problem



According to a survey conducted in India, heart failure affects 1.2/1000 with more than half requiring repeat hospitalizations, thereby adding to the economic burden.[1] In advanced stages, heart failure may not be manageable by drugs wherein mechanical circulatory assist devices providing as a bridge to transplant come into play. To formulate a management plan for advanced heart failure, it is prudent to appropriately assess the right ventricular (RV) function, as the success of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation would require adequate RV function and contractility.[2],[3],[4] RV dysfunction will lead to significantly dismal outcome and reduced survival in LVAD recipients.[5]

The lacunae of a consistent definition for RV failure (RVF) post-LVAD and quest for ideal RVAD device will be highlighted. This narrative review would focus on the importance of RV function (perioperative assessment, monitoring, and management) on successful long-term outcome and quality of life post-LVAD implantation.

 Methodology



Pubmed MeSH database search for keywords including “heart failure,” “LVAD,” “RVF,” “RV anatomy and physiology,” “assessment for RV function,” “Management of RVF,” and “RV Mechanical Support” was done. The search was filtered to “humans” and literature in the English language without restriction to study type. The resultant searches were scrutinized before inclusion in this narrative review.

 Structural and Functional Differences between Left Ventricular and Right Ventricular



The RV is structurally primitive compared to the left ventricle. RV has two layers of muscles with approximately about one-fifths of muscle mass of LV owing to its exposure to low pressure pulmonary circulation. In contrast, LV is thicker and has additional oblique muscle layer and contracts against higher systemic pressures.[6] RV receives blood throughout the cardiac cycle compared to LV which receives during diastole; hence, RV is more tolerant to ischemia.[7] Thinner wall of RV makes it to conveniently adopt to higher degrees of volume overload; however, sudden rise in pressure is poorly borne. The twist of interventricular septum significantly contributes to RV contraction; hence, LV failure (LVF) would lead to reduced RV function by ventricular interdependence.[8] Therefore, LV failure begets RVF. Furthermore, LV failure increases end diastolic pressure which leads to raised left atrial pressures and subsequently elevated pulmonary venous pressures. The reflex arteriolar vasoconstriction, passive retrograde transmission of venous pressures, and irreversible effects to pulmonary parenchyma in long-standing raised pressures lead to pulmonary artery hypertension which increases RV afterload and RV dilatation and failure subsequently.[9],[10]

RV compensates physiologically by dilating in response to excess volume and hypertrophy in response to chronic excess in pressure. However, the thin wall does not protect against acute afterload increase.[11] This increased RV afterload from hypertensive pulmonary circuit results most commonly from LV failure or regurgitant and stenotic mitral valvar pathologies and associated atrial arrhythmias. The other causes of pulmonary artery hypertension being idiopathic pulmonary hypertension, sequelae of lung parenchyma disorder, pulmonary thrombo-embolism, or various combinations of these.[12] There is reduced RV output which translates into low LV input, and hence, further decreasing LV output and compromised systemic circulation.

 The Right Ventricular Failure post-Left Ventricular Assist Device – The Definition, Severity Gradation, and Incidence (Early and Late Right Ventricular Failure)



RVF post LVAD is defined as:[13],[14],[15]

Central venous pressure (CVP) ≥16 mm HgCardiac index <2 L/min/m2≥2 weeks of persisting inotropic support≥48 h of dependence on inhaled or intravenous pulmonary vasodilatorsNeed for mechanical circulatory support or RV assist device (RVAD).[16]

Interagency registry for mechanically assisted circulatory support categorized RVF as the following grades according to severity:[15],[17]

Mild: ≤7 days requirement of inotropesModerate: 8–14 days' requirement of inotropesSevere: ≥14 days requirement of inotropes and mechanical ventilation.

Incidence of RVF post-LVAD implantation was observed to be 60.7% according to the above-mentioned criteria.[4] Early-onset RVF has an incidence of 9%–44%.[18] There has been proposed two hit theory with one hit being before surgery and the other is surgery with LVAD affecting RV function. Vasoplegia has also been postulated as a causal factor in the early postoperative period.

Late-onset RVF has been observed in 11% cases, weeks to months after LVAD implantation and has been thought to be either extension of early RVF or a separate pathophysiological phenomenon.[19] It manifests with increased hospital admissions, intolerance/resistance to diuresis/diuretics, kidney and liver dysfunction, requirement of inotropes, and failure to thrive. low dose digoxin, judicious use of diuretics, and pulmonary vasodilators may manage this type of RVF.[18]

 Assessment of Right Ventricular Contractility and Dimensions



This is cumbersome and affected by:

RV geometry affected by different interrogating planes[20]Less muscle mass, hence, less prominent walls compared with LV[21],[22]No specified landmarks anatomically[22]Retrosternal in location.

Various imaging modalities being used are magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized tomography (CT) scan, trans-thoracic and trans-esophageal echocardiography, and catheter angiography. The latter two are invasive while the former two are the noninvasive ones.

Magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography scan, and right heart catheterization

MRI precision in defining RV accurately is well-documented; however, lack of portability and availability at various centers and interference or incompatibility with LVAD device prohibit its use.[23],[24] CT scan although provides excellent anatomic detail is limited by artifacts from the device and lack of availability at various centers with radiation risk.[25] Therefore, although being invasive in assessment, catheter-based regime is considered the gold standard for profiling RV and both preload and afterload measurements. The precision in pressure measurements in both systemic and pulmonary circuits helps in accurate calculation of pulmonary artery pulsatility index (PAPI), and this parameter is being used in various scores for RVF risk prediction post-LVAD implantation.[26],[27]

Echocardiography-based assessment

Transthoracic echocardiography

RV functional assessment with two-dimensional TTE is based on parameters including dimensions, volume, Doppler, and speckle track images according to criteria laid out by the American Society of Echocardiography [Table 1].[20],[28]{Table 1}

Since the introduction of strain by imaging the deform in myocardium, RV functional parameters are better defined and criteria resulting from strain have been added to the latest guidelines. This strain imaging can be accessed through speckle tracking and Doppler tissue imaging but the former relies less on angle of view, hence preferred.[29],[30] This speckle analysis for LV function is based on the addition of longitudinal strain of LV in 17 segments in multiplane assessment.[31],[32] These criteria for RV profiling are inconsistent in literature; however, three-dimensional echo calculated ejection fraction approximates the one calculated by MRI and is reliable.[31]

Transesophageal echo assessment

Transesophageal echo (TEE) is widely used in the intra-operative and post-operative periods for monitoring and as a guide for RV assessment. The absence of defined criteria and the alterations played by anesthetic drugs on vascular physiology and myocardium makes TEE-based assessment unreliable.[33] In addition, RV in its entirety is difficult to evaluate in traditional views, hence, focused RV view visualizing the entire cardiac cycle determines RV size reliably.[34] Accuracy in determination based on Doppler or motion mode in TEE is limited by the challenges faced in alignment of these structures. RV longitudinal strain assessed during TEE was found variable; hence, multi-planar imaging is required for appropriate characterization. In a study, this value if ≤9.2% most closely heralded RVF.[35]

 Systemic Effects of Right Ventricular Failure and Blood Biochemistry



Pulmonary artery hypertension as a result of LV failure increases RV afterload. Increased pressure overload on RV leads to RV hypertrophy (RVH), increasing the RV mass, and altering its geometry. Now RV becomes spherical, dilated with increased wall stress which leads to increased systemic venous pressure (CVP) resulting in interstitial congestion which promotes the release of local pro-inflammatory cytokines (interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, endothelin-1, and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1). These cytokines lead to chronic inflammation and progressive organ damage which is depicted in the flow diagram [Figure 1].[36]{Figure 1}

Hepatic and renal failure may contraindicate LVAD placement and heart transplant in the patientTrimethylamine N-oxide elevation is also associated with decreased actin-myosin activity and progressive myocardial fibrosis which aggravates ventricular dysfunction further progressing heart failure[37]Multivariate analysis in various studies have confirmed serum level of bilirubin ≥2 mg/dl, blood urea nitrogen ≥39 mg/dl, serum creatinine ≥2.3 mg/dl, systemic BP ≤96 mm Hg, aspartate aminotransferase levels ≥80 U/L, use of inotropes or circulatory support devices before surgery, history of cardiothoracic surgery, and preoperative mechanical ventilation have been found to correlate well with risk of RVF post-LVAD support.[5],[15],[38],[39]

 Risk Factor Scores for Diagnosing Right Failure Post-Left Ventricular Assist Device



There has been a paradigm shift from pulsatile flow to continuous flow ventricular assist devices from 2010, increasing survival from 56% in 2008 to 80% in 2011.[40] Continuous flow devices have demonstrated significantly improved LV profile and reduction in pulmonary vascular resistance.[41],[42],[43],[44] There have been many risk factor score models designed for the prediction of RVF; however, they have been limited by:[39],[45]

Retrospective single center-based studiesPulsatile flow device entries were based for calculating these scores, not correlating well with recent dataTherapeutic goal shift from predominantly bridge to transplant to equally divided between bridge to transplant and destination therapy (DT)Absence of uniformity in defining RVF.

Kalogeropoulos et al. in their study attempted validation of RVF prediction models in 116 patients with continuous flow LVADs. They found 32% incidence of RVF which could not be accurately predicted by any of the six most commonly used models.[46]

Bellavia et al. in their meta-analysis of RVF in LVAD evaluated 4428 patients finding RVF in 35% cases concluded that none of the parameters either individually or in combination could predict RVF accurately.[47]

The latest risk predictor ALMA score, efficient in predicting RVF with sensitivity and specificity of >82% is based on the following five parameters with defined score of 1 for each:[48]

Used for DTPAPI <2RV/LV ratio (right to left ventricular end-diastolic ratio) >0.75RV Stroke Work Index <300 mm Hg/ml/m2Model for end-stage liver disease excluding International Normalized Ratio XI score >17.

However, this is yet to substantiated by other studies.

 Left Ventricular Assist Device Success Based on Proper Assessment and Management of Right Ventricular



Peri-operative assessment

Since LVAD is reliant on provision of adequate preload by a good functioning RV, pump velocity of LVAD is slowly raised striking a balance between LV afterload and RV preload. Multidisciplinary team is required for the selection of LVAD patients based on institutional protocols, laboratory samples, adequate profiling of RV function, and dimensions. Optimal medical management with proper diuresis and inotropic support if required should always be instituted.

Surgical management

Pericardiotomy leads to dilated RV and affects pressure volume loops with reduced RV contractility; hence, minimally invasive LVAD placement preserves integrity of pericardium around RV, thereby, preserving its function.[49] The continuous flow Heartware LVAD is shown in [Figure 2] and [Figure 3] with description of parts and blood flow, whereas Heartmate II is shown in [Figure 4] and [Figure 5]. The LVAD placement has been achieved using anterior thoracotomy or upper mini sternotomy or left thoracotomy.[50],[51] These are, however, limited by intraoperative one lung ventilation requirements for aiding a successful exposure of LV apex for cannula placement, hence, pulmonary parenchymal diseases, and co-existing cardiac lesions requiring median sternotomy have to be excluded. The adoption of a surgical technique which aids in reducing bypass time, meticulous hemostasis, and careful de-airing is a pre-requisite for comprehensive RV protection.[18] The surgeon should insist on maintaining a low tidal volume ventilation even during cardiopulmonary bypass.[52]{Figure 2}{Figure 3}{Figure 4}{Figure 5}

There have been no set guidelines for tricuspid valve (TV) management for tricuspid regurgitation during LVAD placement. In a study by Han et al., TV repair or replacement, although reduced regurgitation late postoperatively but did not offer a survival benefit.[53] The addition of these procedures led to longer bypass duration, increased rate of re-exploration due to surgical hemorrhage, and multiple blood product transfusions with increased incidence of kidney dysfunction and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stays.[54],[55],[56] The surgical strategy and concerns are mentioned in [Table 2].{Table 2}

Anesthetic management

The labile hemodynamic parameters should be comprehensively managed. This is achieved by titrating sedative and paralytic agents while maintaining a close balance between the two. The inotropic support started before surgery is extended intra-operatively for continued systemic perfusion, ensured coronary perfusion, and for optimization of systemic venous return to RV. The hemodynamic support is summarized in [Table 3]. Intra-operative TEE for exclusion of thrombus or mass, assessment of valves, and atrial septal defect should be ensured for successful LVAD placement.[52],[57] There should be emphasis on prevention against transfusion-related lung injury. The intraoperative TEE assessment is mentioned in [Table 4].{Table 3}{Table 4}

Left ventricular assist device and intra-operative concerns

There should be close communication between surgical and anesthesia team. The decompression of LV should be observed with TEE for ensuring adequate preload to RV as well as prevention of rapid and excessive LV decompression. Rapid LV decompression leads to shifting to septum toward LV cavity; therefore, only RV free wall contributing to RV contractility and function. There is also increased venous return causing increased RV preload. The absence of septal RV contribution leads to decreased forward flow, and therefore, compromised systemic perfusion and LVAD function.[52] The other contributory factors of poor RV contractility would be poor myocardial protection, dysfunction post cardioplegic arrest, air emboli in coronaries, and ischemic reperfusion injury. Postoperative TEE after LVAD placement should compare RV hemodynamics (including contractility and regurgitant TV jet), visualization of LVAD circuit (directing the inflow cannula toward the mitral valve and orienting away from the septum), flowing mechanics of device, preload to LV and deviation of interventricular septum.[57],[58]

Postoperative management

Vasoplegia manifests with worsening hemodynamics while coming off from cardiopulmonary bypass. The underlying mechanism can be explained by desensitization of smooth muscle receptors, altered pathway of second messengers, critical illness associated reduced intrinsic steroids, and raised levels of nitric oxide (NO).[59] This is efficiently managed with adequate intra-vascular volume augmentation and vasopressor support. Nor-adrenaline is usually considered first followed by vasopressin. Methylene blue and hydroxycobalamin have been tried in most resistant cases, however, without much substantial evidence and improperly understood mechanism of action.[60],[61] Low dose steroids have been added as last resort in conjunction with the former agents.[62]

Immediate postoperative mechanical ventilation can be challenging in these patients with chronic heart failure before surgery with a history of repeated episodes of pulmonary edema and resultant reduced pulmonary compliance. Raised pulmonary pressures also add to the difficulties in the immediate postoperative ventilation weaning. Lung protective ventilation strategy with low tidal volume and higher frequency with optimal positive end expiratory pressure while keeping a close watch on plateau pressure, striking close balance between permissible hypercapnia and hypoxia, mild hypothermia with marginal acidosis should be strived in this period.[52] The above measures in conjunction with appropriate pharmacological management and judicious diuresis results in an effective cardiac index with LVAD, improved lung function which facilitates weaning from mechanical ventilation aiding in quick pulmonary rehabilitation post-LVAD placement.

Management of Right Ventricular Failure in the postoperative period

Pharmacological management

This is achieved with:

Ionotropic support – increasing RV contractility as well as decreasing afterload with Milrinone and/or dobutamine. Adrenaline can be added to the combination if milrinone is not tolerated due to systemic hypotensionPulmonary vasodilators – Decrease pulmonary vascular resistance reducing RV afterload e.g., Epoprostenol,[63] inhaled NO,[64] phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (sildenafil) and endothelin receptor antagonist e.g., Bosentan[65],[66]Newer agent such as Riociguat has been used with variable success in reducing pulmonary vascular resistance. It acts through soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulation. There are two proposed mechanisms, one is by sensitization of sGC to endogenous NO and the other is by stimulation of sGC independent of intrinsic NO. It also induces vasodilation and there have been observed effects against fibrosis, inflammation, and cellular proliferation in certain animal studies[67]Milrinone acts through both pathways, however, due to its effect on systemic circulation, hypotension is expected which limits the use in cases with lower SVR. Inhaled Milrinone has been put to use in view of lower doses, shorter half-life causing early elimination, and targeted effect on pulmonary circulation[68]Use of sildenafil in oral or intravenous forms effectively reduces pulmonary vascular resistance and improves RV contractility[2],[69],[70]Levosimendan, a calcium ion sensitizer, acts as an iono-dilator without increasing myocardial oxygen demand can be tried in the certain scenarios of advanced RVF, however, unpredictable effects on systemic vascular resistance with resultant systemic hypotension preclude its use as a first-line management agent[71],[72]Pimobendan, first used by Imamura et al., increases sensitivity for calcium and selectively inhibits phosphodiesterase 3.[73] This has been approved for use in RVF in Japan.[74],[75]

Mechanical support devices

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump reduces LV afterload and augments diastolic blood pressure, hence, used as first line of therapy, however, has not substantiated for use in RVF in various researches[76],[77]Veno-arterial ECMO – Provides optimal relief to RV and prevents end organ ischemia; however, interference with LVAD device circuit and provision of increased resistance to LVAD, potentially limits its usage. There have been reports of thrombus formation due to reduced flow rates in LVAD owing to non-physiologic retrograde aortic flows and pulmonary shunting[78]RVAD – Previously used LVAD devices for RV support were limited by the differences between the two ventricles both anatomically and physiologically. The longer outflow cannula of LVAD interfered with pulmonary circulation, creating resistance and the length of inflow cannula restricted apically displaced TV with risk of inter-ventricular septal injury. Inflow circuits used in RA as a modification were also limited by thinness of RA wall and the tip's proximity to interatrial septum with potential for iatrogenic ASD creation.[79],[80] Ideal RVAD shall have the following characteristics as proposed by Ranganath et al.:[79],[81]

Hemodynamic characteristics:

Nominal flow = 2–6 L/min (excludes transient pulsations)Nominal pump pressure difference of 20–60 mm HgAvailability of pulsatile modesNormal power versus flows above range of operability (ensuring automaticity).

Procedural characteristics:

Optimal size with light weighted circuitVersatile cannula placement (right atrium or ventricle)Reduced length of inflow circuitSewing ring with felt spacers and height adjustabilityProvision of placement without bypass and bloodless insertion reducing blood transfusion in postoperative periodAllows minimal access placementAnatomic single controller for configuring to biventricular mode.

Recent developments have been observed with dual lumen cannula device (ProTek Duo) with one tip placed in right internal jugular vein draining right atrium and one in pulmonary artery.[82],[83] Percutaneous RVADs, for example, Impella with microaxial pump placed through femoral vein have been introduced.[84],[85] These are short-term assist devices approved for use upto 14 days only. The quest for an ideal device, however, still continues.

 Conclusion



The anatomical and physiological differences among the two ventricles with interventricular dependence for the functioning of both play a pivotal role in understanding the heart failure. RVF predicts dismal outcome in LVAD recipients acting as an Achilles heel. Absence of conclusive definition of RVF and lack of evidence-based RVF prediction risk scores limits the process further. The limited RV visualisation due to anatomic limitations, MRI incompatibility, server based variation in TTE, and lack of evidence-based guidelines for use of TEE assessment further add road blocks to RV assessment. Multidisciplinary evaluation preoperatively with cardiologist being the lead physician, intra-operative close communication between the surgeon, and the anesthesiologist and vigilant early postoperative care may prevent and effectively antagonise RVF. Further advances are required in developing durable long term RVADs for successful LVAD functioning and optimising overall outcome.

Acknowledgment

We acknowledge Mr Ramchandra B. Pokale, Chief Artist, Center for Community Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi, India, for contributing the artwork for this review.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1Chaturvedi V, Parakh N, Seth S, Bhargava B, Ramakrishnan S, Roy A, et al. Heart failure in India: The INDUS (INDia Ukieri Study) study. J Pract Cardiovasc Sci 2016;2:28-35.
2Guazzi M, Vicenzi M, Arena R, Guazzi MD. Pulmonary hypertension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A target of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition in a 1-year study. Circulation 2011;124:164-74.
3Fang JC, DeMarco T, Givertz MM, Borlaug BA, Lewis GD, Rame JE, et al. World health organization pulmonary hypertension group 2: Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease in the adult-a summary statement from the Pulmonary Hypertension Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2012;31:913-33.
4LaRue SJ, Raymer DS, Pierce BR, Nassif ME, Sparrow CT, Vader JM. Clinical outcomes associated with INTERMACS-defined right heart failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36:475-7.
5Armstrong HF, Schulze PC, Kato TS, Bacchetta M, Thirapatarapong W, Bartels MN. Right ventricular stroke work index as a negative predictor of mortality and initial hospital stay after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013;32:603-8.
6Dell'Italia LJ. The right ventricle: Anatomy, physiology, and clinical importance. Curr Probl Cardiol 1991;16:653-720.
7Crystal GJ, Pagel PS. Right ventricular perfusion: Physiology and clinical implications. Anesthesiology 2018;128:202-18.
8Buckberg GD; RESTORE Group. The ventricular septum: The lion of right ventricular function, and its impact on right ventricular restoration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29 Suppl 1:S272-8.
9Vachiéry JL, Adir Y, Barberà JA, Champion H, Coghlan JG, Cottin V, et al. Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart diseases. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:D100-8.
10Miller WL, Grill DE, Borlaug BA. Clinical features, hemodynamics, and outcomes of pulmonary hypertension due to chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Pulmonary hypertension and heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2013;1:290-9.
11Shi L, Kojonazarov B, Elgheznawy A, Popp R, Dahal BK, Böhm M, et al. miR-223-IGF-IR signalling in hypoxia- and load-induced right-ventricular failure: A novel therapeutic approach. Cardiovasc Res 2016;111:184-93.
12Simonneau G, Gatzoulis MA, Adatia I, Celermajer D, Denton C, Ghofrani A, et al. Updated clinical classification of pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:D34-41.
13Lampert BC, Teuteberg JJ. Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1123-30.
14Bartfay SE, Dellgren G, Lidén H, Holmberg M, Gäbel J, Redfors B, et al. Are biventricular assist devices underused as a bridge to heart transplantation in patients with a high risk of postimplant right ventricular failure? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2017;153:360-70.
15Matthews JC, Koelling TM, Pagani FD, Aaronson KD. The right ventricular failure risk score a pre-operative tool for assessing the risk of right ventricular failure in left ventricular assist device candidates. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;51:2163-72.
16Aissaoui N, Morshuis M, Schoenbrodt M, Hakim Meibodi K, Kizner L, Börgermann J, et al. Temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support for the management of right ventricular failure in critically ill patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;146:186-91.
17Karimov JH, Sunagawa G, Horvath D, Fukamachi K, Starling RC, Moazami N. Limitations to chronic right ventricular assist device support. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;102:651-8.
18Kimmaliardjuk DM, Ruel M. Cardiac passive-aggressive behavior? The right ventricle in patients with a left ventricular assist device. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2017;15:267-76.
19Turner KR. Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device placement-the beginning of the end or just another challenge? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2019;33:1105-21.
20Rudski LG, Lai WW, Afilalo J, Hua L, Handschumacher MD, Chandrasekaran K, et al. Guidelines for the echocardiographic assessment of the right heart in adults: A report from the American Society of Echocardiography endorsed by the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2010;23:685-713.
21Dell'Italia LJ. Anatomy and physiology of the right ventricle. Cardiol Clin 2012;30:167-87.
22Bleeker GB, Steendijk P, Holman ER, Yu CM, Breithardt OA, Kaandorp TA, et al. Assessing right ventricular function: The role of echocardiography and complementary technologies. Heart 2006;92 Suppl 1:i19-26.
23DeFaria Yeh D, Foster E. Is MRI the preferred method for evaluating right ventricular size and function in patients with congenital heart disease? MRI is not the preferred method for evaluating right ventricular size and function in patients with congenital heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2014;7:198-205.
24Caudron J, Fares J, Lefebvre V, Vivier PH, Petitjean C, Dacher JN. Cardiac MRI assessment of right ventricular function in acquired heart disease: Factors of variability. Acad Radiol 2012;19:991-1002.
25Garcia-Alvarez A, Fernandez-Friera L, Lau JF, Sawit ST, Mirelis JG, Castillo JG, et al. Evaluation of right ventricular function and post-operative findings using cardiac computed tomography in patients with left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011;30:896-903.
26ERRATUM Kang G, Ha R, Banerjee D. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index predicts right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36:1272.
27Korabathina R, Heffernan KS, Paruchuri V, Patel AR, Mudd JO, Prutkin JM, et al. The pulmonary artery pulsatility index identifies severe right ventricular dysfunction in acute inferior myocardial infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2012;80:593-600.
28Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: An update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2015;16:233-70.
29Fine NM, Chen L, Bastiansen PM, Frantz RP, Pellikka PA, Oh JK, et al. Reference values for right ventricular strain in patients without cardiopulmonary disease: A Prospective evaluation and meta-analysis. Echocardiography 2015;32:787-96.
30Di Franco A, Kim J, Rodriguez-Diego S, Khalique O, Siden JY, Goldburg SR, et al. Multiplanar strain quantification for assessment of right ventricular dysfunction and non-ischemic fibrosis among patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation. PLoS One 2017;12:e0185657.
31Grant AD, Smedira NG, Starling RC, Marwick TH. Independent and incremental role of quantitative right ventricular evaluation for the prediction of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;60:521-8.
32Il'Giovine ZJ, Mulder H, Chiswell K, Arges K, Tomfohr J, Hashmi A, et al. Right ventricular longitudinal strain reproducibility using vendor-dependent and vendor-independent software. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2018;31:721-32.
33Essandoh M, Awad H. Transesophageal speckle tracking echocardiography assessment of right ventricular longitudinal strain: A tool in search of validation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2017;31:2103-5.
34Markin NW, Chamsi-Pasha M, Luo J, Thomas WR, Brakke TR, Porter TR, et al. Transesophageal speckle-tracking echocardiography improves right ventricular systolic function assessment in the perioperative setting. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2017;30:180-8.
35Shen T, Picard MH, Hua L, Burns SM, Andrawes MN. Assessment of tricuspid annular motion by speckle tracking in anesthetized patients using transesophageal echocardiography. Anesth Analg 2018;126:62-7.
36DeFilippis EM, Guazzi M, Colombo PC, Yuzefpolskaya M. A right ventricular state of mind in the progression of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Implications for left ventricular assist device therapy. Heart Fail Rev 2020;doi: 10.1007/s10741-020-09935-x.
37Suzuki T, Yazaki Y, Voors AA, Jones DJ, Chan DC, Anker SD, et al. Association with outcomes and response to treatment of trimethylamine N-oxide in heart failure: Results from BIOSTAT-CHF. Eur J Heart Fail 2019;21:877-86.
38Kormos RL, Teuteberg JJ, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Miller LW, et al. Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: Incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139:1316-24.
39Fitzpatrick JR 3rd, Frederick JR, Hsu VM, Kozin ED, O'Hara ML, Howell E, et al. Risk score derived from pre-operative data analysis predicts the need for biventricular mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:1286-92.
40Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Blume ED, Myers SL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: Special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36:1080-6.
41Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Uriel N, Cleveland JC Jr, Yuzefpolskaya M, Salerno C, et al. Two-year outcomes with a magnetically levitated cardiac pump in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1386-95.
42Zimpfer D, Zrunek P, Roethy W, Czerny M, Schima H, Huber L, et al. Left ventricular assist devices decrease fixed pulmonary hypertension in cardiac transplant candidates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2007;133:689-95.
43Mikus E, Stepanenko A, Krabatsch T, Loforte A, Dandel M, Lehmkuhl HB, et al. Reversibility of fixed pulmonary hypertension in left ventricular assist device support recipients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2011;40:971-7.
44Houston 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;35:868-76.
45Drakos SG, Janicki L, Horne BD, Kfoury AG, Reid BB, Clayson S, et al. Risk factors predictive of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. Am J Cardiol 2010;105:1030-5.
46Kalogeropoulos AP, Kelkar A, Weinberger JF, Morris AA, Georgiopoulou VV, Markham DW, et al. Validation of clinical scores for right ventricular failure prediction after implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1595-603.
47Bellavia D, Iacovoni A, Scardulla C, Moja L, Pilato M, Kushwaha SS, et al. Prediction of right ventricular failure after ventricular assist device implant: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:926-46.
48Loforte A, Montalto A, Musumeci F, Amarelli C, Mariani C, Polizzi V, et al. Calculation of the ALMA risk of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. ASAIO J 2018;64:e140-e147.
49Hanke JS, Rojas SV, Avsar M, Haverich A, Schmitto JD. Minimally-invasive LVAD Implantation: State of the Art. Curr Cardiol Rev 2015;11:246-51.
50Sileshi B, Haglund NA, Davis ME, Tricarico NM, Stulak JM, Khalpey Z, et al. In-hospital outcomes of a minimally invasive off-pump left thoracotomy approach using a centrifugal continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:107-12.
51Schmitto JD, Molitoris U, Haverich A, Strueber M. Implantation of a centrifugal pump as a left ventricular assist device through a novel, minimized approach: Upper hemisternotomy combined with anterolateral thoracotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:511-3.
52Meineri M, Van Rensburg AE, Vegas A. Right ventricular failure after LVAD implantation: Prevention and treatment. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2012;26:217-29.
53Han J, Takeda K, Takayama H, Kurlansky PA, Mauro CM, Colombo PC, et al. Durability and clinical impact of tricuspid valve procedures in patients receiving a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:520-70.
54Deo SV, Hasin T, Altarabsheh SE, McKellar SH, Shah IK, Durham L 3rd, et al. Concomitant tricuspid valve repair or replacement during left ventricular assist device implant demonstrates comparable outcomes in the long term. J Card Surg 2012;27:760-6.
55Oezpeker C, Zittermann A, Paluszkiewicz L, Piran M, Puehler T, Sayin AO, et al. Tricuspid valve repair in patients with left-ventricular assist device implants and tricuspid valve regurgitation: Propensity score-adjusted analysis of clinical outcome. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2015;21:741-7.
56Fujita T, Kobayashi J, Hata H, Seguchi O, Murata Y, Yanase M, et al. Right heart failure and benefits of adjuvant tricuspid valve repair in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:802-7.
57Tan CO, Harley I. Perioperative transesophageal echocardiographic assessment of the right heart and associated structures: A comprehensive update and technical report. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2014;28:1100-21.
58Raina A, Vaidya A, Gertz ZM, Susan Chambers, Forfia PR. Marked changes in right ventricular contractile pattern after cardiothoracic surgery: Implications for post-surgical assessment of right ventricular function. J Heart Lung Transplant 2013;32:777-83.
59Levy B, Fritz C, Tahon E, Jacquot A, Auchet T, Kimmoun A. Vasoplegia treatments: The past, the present, and the future. Crit Care 2018;22:52.
60Shah PR, Reynolds PS, Pal N, Tang D, McCarthy H, Spiess BD. Hydroxocobalamin for the treatment of cardiac surgery-associated vasoplegia: A case series. Can J Anaesth 2018;65:560-8.
61Burnes ML, Boettcher BT, Woehlck HJ, Zundel MT, Iqbal Z, Pagel PS. Hydroxocobalamin as a rescue treatment for refractory vasoplegic syndrome after prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2017;31:1012-4.
62Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 2017;43:304-77.
63Califf RM, Adams KF, McKenna WJ, Gheorghiade M, Uretsky BF, McNulty SE, et al. A randomized controlled trial of epoprostenol therapy for severe congestive heart failure: The Flolan International Randomized Survival Trial (FIRST). Am Heart J 1997;134:44-54.
64Potapov E, Meyer D, Swaminathan M, Ramsay M, El Banayosy A, Diehl C, et al. Inhaled nitric oxide after left ventricular assist device implantation: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011;30:870-8.
65Kalra PR, Moon JC, Coats AJ. Do results of the ENABLE (Endothelin Antagonist Bosentan for Lowering Cardiac Events in Heart Failure) study spell the end for non-selective endothelin antagonism in heart failure? Int J Cardiol 2002;85:195-7.
66Packer M, McMurray J, Massie BM, Caspi A, Charlon V, Cohen-Solal A, et al. Clinical effects of endothelin receptor antagonism with bosentan in patients with severe chronic heart failure: Results of a pilot study. J Card Fail 2005;11:12-20.
67Bonderman D, Ghio S, Felix SB, Ghofrani HA, Michelakis E, Mitrovic V, et al. Riociguat for patients with pulmonary hypertension caused by systolic left ventricular dysfunction: A phase IIb double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging hemodynamic study. Circulation 2013;128:502-11.
68Haglund NA, Burdorf A, Jones T, Shostrom V, Um J, Ryan T, et al. Inhaled milrinone after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Card Fail 2015;21:792-7.
69Klodell CT Jr, Morey TE, Lobato EB, Aranda JM Jr, Staples ED, Schofield RS, et al. Effect of sildenafil on pulmonary artery pressure, systemic pressure, and nitric oxide utilization in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:68-71.
70Trachte AL, Lobato EB, Urdaneta F, Hess PJ, Klodell CT, Martin TD, et al. Oral sildenafil reduces pulmonary hypertension after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:194-7.
71Packer M, Colucci W, Fisher L, Massie BM, Teerlink JR, Young J, et al. Effect of levosimendan on the short-term clinical course of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. JACC Heart Fail 2013;1:103-11.
72Theiss HD, Grabmaier U, Kreissl N, Hagl C, Steinbeck G, Sodian R, et al. Preconditioning with levosimendan before implantation of left ventricular assist devices. Artif Organs 2014;38:231-4.
73Imamura T, Kinugawa K, Nitta D, Hatano M, Kinoshita O, Nawata K, et al. Biventricular failure with low pulmonary vascular resistance was managed by left ventricular assist device alone without right-sided mechanical support. J Artif Organs 2015;18:272-5.
74Kubo SH, Gollub S, Bourge R, Rakho P, Cobb F, Jessup M, et al. Beneficial effects of pimobendan on exercise tolerance and quality of life in patients with heart failure. Results of a multicenter trial. The Pimobendan Multicenter Research Group. Circulation 1992;85:942-9.
75Kawano H, Arakawa S, Satoh O, Matsumoto Y, Hayano M, Nakatomi D, et al. Effect of pimobendan in addition to standard therapy for heart failure on prevention of readmission in elderly patients with severe chronic heart failure. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2014;14:109-14.
76Krishnamoorthy A, DeVore AD, Sun JL, Barnett AS, Samsky MD, Shaw LK, et al. The impact of a failing right heart in patients supported by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2017;6:709-18.
77Morgan JA, O'Neill WW. Percutaneous right ventricular assist device support in a patient supported by an LVAD. ASAIO J 2016;62:e41-2.
78Noly PE, Kirsch M, Quessard A, Leger P, Pavie A, Amour J, et al. Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: A comparison of two techniques. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014;19:49-55.
79Ranganath NK, Smith DE, Moazami N. The Achilles' heel of left ventricular assist device therapy: Right ventricle. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2018;23:295-300.
80Shehab S, Macdonald PS, Keogh AM, Kotlyar E, Jabbour A, Robson D, et al. Long-term biventricular HeartWare ventricular assist device support-Case series of right atrial and right ventricular implantation outcomes. J Heart Lung Trans 2016;35:466-73.
81McGee E Jr, Chorpenning K, Brown MC, Breznock E, Larose JA, Tamez D. In vivo evaluation of the HeartWare MVAD Pump. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014;33:366-71.
82Kazui T, Tran PL, Echeverria A, Jerman CF, Iwanski J, Kim SM, et al. Minimally invasive approach for percutaneous Centri Mag right ventricular assist device support using a single PROTEKDuo Cannula. J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;11:123.
83Chopski SG, Murad NM, Fox CS, Stevens RM, Throckmorton AL. Mechanical circulatory support of the right ventricle for adult and pediatric patients with heart failure. ASAIO J 2019;65:106-16.
84Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, Morris LD, Kormos RL, Bhama J, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: The prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1549-60.
85Goldstein JA, Kern MJ. Percutaneous mechanical support for the failing right heart. Cardiol Clin 2012;30:303-10.