* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Continuous Flow Left ventricular Assist Device
Remote ischemic conditioning wikipedia , lookup
Electrocardiography wikipedia , lookup
Management of acute coronary syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Myocardial infarction wikipedia , lookup
Artificial heart valve wikipedia , lookup
Heart failure wikipedia , lookup
Aortic stenosis wikipedia , lookup
Cardiac surgery wikipedia , lookup
Lutembacher's syndrome wikipedia , lookup
Cardiac contractility modulation wikipedia , lookup
Jatene procedure wikipedia , lookup
Mitral insufficiency wikipedia , lookup
Echocardiography wikipedia , lookup
Dextro-Transposition of the great arteries wikipedia , lookup
Atrial septal defect wikipedia , lookup
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy wikipedia , lookup
Ventricular fibrillation wikipedia , lookup
Quantium Medical Cardiac Output wikipedia , lookup
Arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia wikipedia , lookup
Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications Vol. 1 No. 1 (2015) 107–118 ISSN 2009-8618 DOI 10.15212/CVIA.2015.0013 Review Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy: A Focused Review on Optimal P atient Selection and Long-Term Follow-up Using Echocardiography Juan R. Vilaro, MD1,2, Anita Szady, MD2, Mustafa M. Ahmed, MD2, Jacqueline Dawson, MD3 and Juan M. Aranda Jr., MD2 North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Cardiology Section, Gainesville, FL, USA University of Florida College of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA 3 Western Kentucky Heart and Lung Associates, Division of Cardiology, Scottsville, KY, USA 1 2 Abstract Despite widespread awareness and use of scientifically proven life-prolonging medical and device-based therapies over the last two decades, heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure in the United States. Mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD), either as a bridge to heart transplantation or as destination therapy, is an increasingly used treatment modality for patients with advanced heart failure syndromes that worsen despite their receiving standard therapies. CF-LVAD support creates unique hemodynamic alterations that must be understood to provide appropriate care for these patients before and after implantation. Echocardiography is essential in the evaluation of patients who are being considered for or are mechanically supported by CF-LVADs. Here we provide a focused clinical review on the use of echocardiography in two main aspects of the evaluation of these patients: (a) optimal patient selection for CF-LVAD support and (b) followup assessment of optimal pump function. Keywords: echocardiography; continuous-flow left ventricular assist device; heart failure; decision making; outcomes Introduction Despite widespread awareness and use of scientifically proven life-prolonging medical and device-based therapies over the last two decades, heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and health care expenditure in the Correspondence: Juan R. Vilaro, MD, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Box 100277, Gainesville, FL 32610-0277, USA, Tel.: +1 (352) 273-9075, Fax: +1 (352) 846-0314, E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 Cardiovascular Innovations and Applications United States [1]. Patients who have progressive heart failure syndromes despite receiving standard treatment, including medical therapy and cardiac resynchronization, are being increasingly considered for implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular (LV) assist devices (CF-LVADs). CFLVADs are effective in improving survival and quality of life in patients with advanced heart failure, and can be used as destination therapy or as a bridge to heart transplantation [2, 3]. The increasing incidence of CF-LVAD implantation over the last decade mandates an effort from all practicing physicians, not just heart failure specialists, 108 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review to understand the basic anatomic and physiologic implications of these devices on cardiac structure and function. Echocardiography plays an integral role in the evaluation of patients with advanced heart failure who are being considered for or are mechanically supported by a CF-LVAD. Here we provide a focused clinical review on the use of echocardiography in two main aspects of the evaluation of these patients: (a) optimal patient selection for CF-LVAD support and (b) follow-up assessment of optimal pump function. events prevent optimal function of the CF-LVAD as they automatically trigger speed decrements and are frequently associated with ventricular arrhythmias [7]. From a structural and functional standpoint, hearts with a severely reduced LV ejection fraction and moderate to severe degrees of LV dilation are therefore likeliest to benefit from CF-LVAD support. Optimal Patient Selection Assessment of RV function is critical in patients being considered for LV assist device (LVAD) implantation. The hemodynamic effects of a CFLVAD on the right ventricle can be divergent. The desired favorable effect is improvement in RV performance following unloading of the left side of the heart and subsequent decongestion of the pulmonary circulation. However, several hemodynamic consequences on the right ventricle following initiation of CF-LVAD support challenge the right side of the heart. Three potentially detrimental effects on right-sided heart function are (1) acute increase in right ventricular preload (which requires an equivalent increase in right-sided cardiac output), (2) leftward septal deformation resulting from LV unloading leading to worsening RV function, and (3) worsening tricuspid regurgitation. There are numerous validated echocardiographic measures of RV structure and function [8]. This review will focus on two indices that have been studied in CF-LVAD patients, are reproducible, and are easily obtainable: (a) tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and (b) heart rate–corrected duration of tricuspid regurgitation (TRDc). TAPSE represents the distance of longitudinal motion of the tricuspid annulus during systole and is a validated index of RV systolic function [8]. It is obtained by M-mode imaging of the lateral tricuspid annulus obtained from an apical four-chamber view. An example is illustrated in Figure 1. TAPSE values below 7.5 mm have high specificity for postoperative right-sided heart failure, and may indicate a need for more aggressive preoperative hemodynamic optimization and/or the need for prolonged inotropic support following CF-LVAD implantation [9]. In patients being considered for durable CF-LVAD implantation, the preoperative echocardiogram is a critical part of the evaluation and can be a powerful predictor of short-term and long-term clinical outcomes after implantation. The preoperative echocardiogram should focus on the following: • Detailed assessment of right ventricular (RV) and LV size, structure, and function • Presence of significant valvular regurgitation, particularly of the aortic and tricuspid valves • Presence of intracardiac thrombi • Presence of intracardiac shunts Left Ventricular Structure and Function Patients being considered for CF-LVAD placement almost invariably have severe reduction in their LV systolic function. Consideration of mechanical circulatory support, including CF-LVADs, is not recommended if the LV ejection fraction is greater than 25% [4]. Careful measurement of LV dimensions is also important, as the presence of relatively small LV cavities, specifically smaller than 63 mm, has been independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality after CF-LVAD implantation [5]. This is likely related to excessive LV emptying and exaggerated leftward shift of the interventricular septum due to its close proximity to the inflow cannula. This abnormal septal deformation worsens RV function [6], and can also cause direct physical contact of the septum with the inflow cannula, termed a s uction event. Suction Right Ventricular Structure and Function J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review 109 Aortic Regurgitation Figure 1 Assessment of Right Ventricular Systolic Function by Tricuspid Annular Plane Systolic Excursion (TAPSE) Measurement. The Longitudinal Motion of the Lateral Tricuspid Annulus is 27 mm, Consistent with Normal Right Ventricular Systolic Function (Normal is More Than 16 mm). TRDc is a novel index described by Topilsky et al. [5] in a large cohort of CF-LVAD patients from the Mayo Clinic. One calculates it by measuring the duration of the tricuspid regurgitant Doppler jet and dividing it by the square root of the R-R interval. TRDc is a heart rate–adjusted measure of the time to pressure equalization between the right ventricle and the right atrium during systole that integrates right atrial compliance and the severity of tricuspid regurgitation. In this regard, it can predict the hemodynamic impact of an acute volume load increase on the right atrium, an expected result of CF-LVAD implantation. Not surprisingly, it was found on multivariate analysis to have a strong ability to predict rates of RV failure and death following LVAD implantation. Patients with a TRDc of less than 461 ms had an adjusted 2-year mortality odds ratio of 2.3 compared with patients with a TRDc longer than 461 ms. Examples of TRDc that would predict low and high risks of RV failure and death are illustrated in Figure 2. Valvular Insufficiency Accurate assessment of any underlying valvular regurgitation, particularly of the aortic and tricuspid valves, is crucial in the evaluation of patients being considered for CF-LVADs, as it directly impacts decisions to perform additional surgery at the time of implantation. There are several validated quantitative and qualitative methods for assessing the severity of aortic insufficiency (AI) [10]. Quantitative methods include regurgitant orifice and regurgitant volume calculation, which can be done with spectral Doppler imaging or the proximal isovelocity surface area method, and vena contracta or jet width measurement. Qualitative measures include pressure half-time and degree of descending aorta diastolic flow reversal. A brief summary of quantitative and qualitative estimates of AI severity is given in Table 1. It is important to remember that in patients with advanced heart failure, LV filling pressures are almost invariably elevated and the pressure halftime method may overestimate the severity of AI significantly [11]. The severity of any preexisting AI will typically worsen to some degree following initiation of CF-LVAD support [12]. Although CFLVAD support is in many cases well tolerated in patients with minimal or mild AI, the presence of moderate AI or worse can result in a physiologically ineffective circuit (left ventricle → inflow cannula → outflow cannula → ascending aorta → left ventricle) owing to a large fraction of the blood volume exiting the outflow graft regurgitating into the left ventricle [13]. For this reason, any patient with AI of more than mild severity should also undergo concomitant aortic valve closure at the time of LVAD implantation. Repair with a single coaptation stitch at the time of implantation provides effective and durable repair of moderate or severe AI in patients in whom a CF-LVAD has been implanted [14]. Tricuspid Regurgitation A detailed assessment of tricuspid valve structure and function is key in the preoperative assessment of patients being considered for CF-LVAD implantation, particularly when there is any significant degree of tricuspid regurgitation. Similarly to its effects on overall RV function, the hemodynamic effects of CF-LVAD support on tricuspid regurgitation may result in worsening, unchanged, or improved tricuspid regurgitation severity [15, 16]. The acute increase in RV end-diastolic volumes following CF-LVAD support can cause functional 110 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review A B Figure 2 (A) Example of a Patient with a Heart Rate–corrected Tricuspid Regurgitation Duration (TRDc) Conferring a High Risk of Postoperative Right-sided Heart Failure and Death (TRDc = 384 ms). (B) Example of a patient with a TRDc conferring a low risk of right ventricular failure and death (TRDc = 519 ms). Table 1 Echocardiographic Parameters Used in Grading the Severity of Aortic Regurgitation. Parameter Mild Moderate Severe Vena contracta (cm) Jet width (% of LVOT width) Regurgitant volume (ml/beat) EROA (cm2) Descending aorta diastolic flow reversal Pressure half-time (ms) <0.3 cm <25 <30 <0.1 Brief, early diastolic >500 0.3–0.60 25–64 30–59 0.1–0.29 Intermediate 200–500 >0.6 >65 >60 >0.30 Holodiastolic <200 EROA, effective regurgitant orifice area; LVOT, left ventricular outflow tract. tricuspid regurgitation to worsen, leading to ineffective forward flow and a syndrome of progressive RV failure. The severity of tricuspid regurgitation at the baseline is associated with increased risk of RV failure when it is moderate or worse on the preoperative transthoracic echocardiogram [17]. J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review A 111 B Figure 3 (A) Example of severe tricuspid regurgitation by color Doppler imaging. Note the broad-based regurgitant jet reaching the posterior wall of the right atrium. (B) Pulsed-wave Doppler imaging demonstrating hepatic vein systolic flow reversal, consistent with severe tricuspid regurgitation. Table 2 Echocardiographic Parameters Used in Grading the Severity of Tricuspid Regurgitation. Parameter Mild Moderate Vena contracta (cm) Jet area (cm) Doppler profile Hepatic vein flow Doppler Not defined <5 Soft, parabolic Systolic dominant Not defined, but <0.7 5–10 Dense, variable contour Systolic blunting However, there are conflicting data regarding the benefits of tricuspid valve repair at the time of CFLVAD implantation in patients with moderate or severe tricuspid regurgitation, and the decision to perform concomitant tricuspid valve repair is ultimately deferred to the performing surgeon [18–20]. Tricuspid regurgitation severity can be graded quantitatively by vena contracta width or tricuspid regurgitant jet area, or qualitatively by evaluation of the Doppler profile of the hepatic vein (systolic flow reversal implies severe tricuspid regurgitation) [10]. An illustration of severe tricuspid regurgitation by color Doppler imaging as well as hepatic vein systolic flow reversal is illustrated in Figure 3. Table 2 briefly summarizes the parameters of tricuspid regurgitation severity. Evaluation for Intracardiac Thrombi Preoperative identification of intracardiac thrombus, particularly in the LV apex, which is not uncommon with dilated cardiomyopathy and a severely reduced LV ejection fraction, is also an important part of preoperative planning before CF- Severe >0.7 >10 Dense, early peaking, triangular Systolic flow reversal LVAD implantation. Although the presence of an apical thrombus does not contraindicate placement of a CF-LVAD, it requires removal of the thrombus at the time of surgery before insertion of the inflow cannula in the LV apex. One study reported that of 100 patients in whom an LVAD has been implanted over 3 years, six had an LV apical thrombus identified preoperatively or intraoperatively. None of them experienced a neurological event, pump thrombosis, or pump malfunction [21]. LV thrombi can be readily detected by transthoracic echocardiography, typically in the apical views. If images are of limited quality, echocardiography contrast agents should be used as they significantly improve the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of echocardiography in diagnosing LV thrombus [22]. An example is shown in Figure 4. Presence of Intracardiac Shunts and Patent Foramen Ovale The echocardiogram before CF-LVAD implantation should include careful inspection for any evidence of intracardiac shunting, including a patent foramen 112 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review be closed at the time of surgery to eliminate the risk of hypoxemia from right to left shunting. Follow-up Echocardiographic Assessment After ContinuousFlow Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement After surgical implantation of a CF-LVAD, echocardiography continues to be an essential clinical tool for the ongoing evaluation and follow-up of pump function, native cardiac function, and overall patient care. The key elements of an echocardiogram in the patient supported with a CF-LVAD should focus on the following: Figure 4 Apical Four-Chamber View Demonstrating Mural Left Ventricular Apical Thrombus in a Patient with Recent Anterior Transmural Myocardial Infarction. ovale (PFO). A PFO are not uncommon and has a reported prevalence of up to 25% in the general population [23]. Although it is typically noted incidentally and not felt to cause any significant shunting, the acute lowering of left-sided intracardiac pressures resulting from CF-LVAD support can precipitate increased right to left interatrial shunting and clinically important hypoxemia and cyanosis [24]. Preoperatively, transthoracic echocardiography can identify atrial level communication with color Doppler imaging of the interatrial septum, or in the apical windows following intravenous administration of agitated saline [25]. The appearance of agitated saline bubbles in the left heart chambers within three beats or less of their appearance in the right side of the heart is typically felt to represent the presence of an intracardiac shunt, most commonly a PFO. It is, however, important to remember that in patients with advanced heart failure and significantly elevated right-and left-sided atrial pressures there may not be a high enough gradient between both atria to cause a detectable shunt. Therefore, in addition to preoperative inspection for shunting, the intraoperative transesophageal echocardiogram should be used to confirm the presence or absence of any shunting, including a PFO that may not have been detected by transthoracic echocardiography. A PFO identified in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation should • Evaluation of adequate LV unloading: • Frequency of aortic valve opening • LV dimension and interventricular septal morphology • Inflow and outflow cannula velocities • Detailed assessment of RV function, including serial assessment over time Evaluating Adequate Left Ventricular Unloading in Patients Supported by a Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device There are multiple features of the echocardiogram that can provide evidence of adequate LV unloading, which is invariably the primary hemodynamic goal of CF-LVAD support. These include the degree and frequency of aortic valve opening, the change in LV dimensions over time, and the cannula velocities. Aortic Valve Opening Evaluation of aortic valve opening by echocardio graphy is a simple, reliable way of determining adequate LV unloading in patients following CF-LVAD implantation [26]. In patients with CF-LVAD support, the aortic valve typically should open not every beat, but rather intermittently every two to three beats, or not at all. The frequency of aortic valve opening can be assessed by 2D imaging in the parasternal long-axis and short-axis views, as well J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review as the apical three-chamber view. However, postsurgically image quality is frequently limited, and M-mode imaging through the aortic valve plane can assess the degree of leaflet opening and excursion more definitively (Figure 5). An aortic valve that opens consistently with each systole suggests that the left ventricle is not adequately unloaded and LV pressures remain significantly elevated. Common causes of inadequate LV unloading include uncontrolled hypertension, intravascular hypervolemia, any form of mechanical obstruction in the pump, 113 including thrombus or kinking of the outflow graft, and the speed setting being too low. Table 3 summarizes the different clinical features of the most common causes of poor LV unloading. Septal Morphology and Ventricular Dimensions Follow-up echocardiographic assessment of LV chamber dimensions, together with the morphology Figure 5 M-mode Image of the Aortic Valve from Patient with Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Support. Note the minimal aortic leaflet excursion indicative of adequate unloading of the left ventricle. Table 3 Causes of Poor Left Ventricular Unloading While the Patient has Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Support. Condition Clinical features Management Uncontrolled hypertension Hypervolemia Elevated PI/power, high RTF, may have persistent/ worsening symptoms of left-sided heart failure Elevated PI/power, JVD, peripheral edema, may have persistent/worsening symptoms of left-sided heart failure Persistent/worsening symptoms of left-sided heart failure, evidence of hemolysis is common (urine discoloration, increased LDH concentration) if secondary to thrombosis Persistent/worsening symptoms of left-sided heart failure Increase vasodilator therapy Mechanical obstruction Pump speed too low Intensify diuresis CT angiography to evaluate the patient for the site of obstruction; if thrombus is suspected, intensify anticoagulation; urine alkalinization; pump exchange may be indicated Increase pump speed, ideally under echocardiographic guidance CT, computed tomography; JVD, jugular venous distention; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; PI, pulsatility index; RTF, return to flow. 114 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review and shape of the interventricular septum, can also provide information regarding the adequacy of LV unloading. Following initiation of CF-LVAD support, LV dimensions typically decrease and slight leftward motion of the interventricular septum is expected, reflecting a moderate decrease in LV pressures relative to RV pressures [27]. If, however, there is an interval increase of the LV dimension, or if there is a predominantly rightward motion of the septum, this suggests increased LV pressure relative to RV pressure, and is typically a sign of inadequate LV unloading. The differential is similar to that of an aortic valve that opens constantly, and workup for all of the previously mentioned scenarios should be pursued (Table 3). Conversely, if the leftward septal shift is pronounced or associated with a dramatic reduction in LV cavity size, this highly suggests excessive LV decompression by the pump. Common causes of this include the pump speed being too high, significant recovery of LV systolic function, or any scenario of reduced LV preload, including intravascular hypovolemia or right-sided heart failure. Table 4 summarizes a diagnostic approach to help distinguish between these different scenarios, as well as potential therapeutic options. A ramp study should be considered whenever there is clinical evidence of poor LV unloading due to suspected mechanical obstruction [28]. This consists in measuring echocardiographic LV dimensions and the frequency of aortic valve opening while serially increasing the CF-LVAD pump speed. An inability to decrease LV dimensions or reduce the frequency of aortic valve opening despite increasing pump speeds should raise concern for mechanical obstruction in the pump, including pump thrombosis. Cannula Velocities The echocardiogram in patients supported with CFLVADs should include attempts to measure blood flow velocities through the inflow cannula and outflow graft. However, Doppler measurements of inflow and outflow velocities are rarely interpretable in centrifugal-flow CF-LVADs because of multiple artifacts [29]. In axial-flow LVADs, inflow velocities are best evaluated in the apical windows, where flow is most parallel to the ultrasound beam. Outflow graft velocities can be measured in the parasternal long-axis window or the suprasternal window as blood flows out of the pump into the ascending aorta. There is no consensus on what the normal range of cannula or graft velocities should be. Ideally, there should be laminar flow by color Doppler imaging, with minimal turbulence, which suggests adequate alignment with mitral inflow. By spectral Doppler imaging, velocities vary widely depending on the patient and loading conditions, typically ranging between 0.3 and 1.5 m/s [30]. Most patients have some degree of phasic variation Table 4 Causes of Excessive Left Ventricular Decompression. Condition Clinical features Management Pump speed too high Hypovolemia Frequent PI/suction events, low flow alarms, ventricular arrhythmias Frequent PI/suction events, ventricular arrhythmias, dry skin turgor, flat JVP, low RTF, preserved right ventricular function JVD, peripheral edema, ascites with frequent PI/suction events, low flow alarms, ventricular arrhythmias, significant RV dilation/ hypokinesis, worsening tricuspid regurgitation Frequent PI/suction events, PI and flow values may vary, improved LVEF by echocardiography Reduce pump speed, ideally under echocardiographic guidance Stop/reduce use of diuretics, encourage fluid intake, IV fluids if severe Right-sided heart failure Recovery of LV function Intensify use of diuretics, consider inotropes, speed reduction can be considered, if listed for transplant and meets criteria for status 1A Consider weaning patient off CF-LVAD support (over weeks to months). If tolerated can consider explantation CF-LVAD, continuous-flow left ventricular assist device; IV, intravenous; JVD, jugular venous distention; JVP, jugular venous pressure; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; PI, pulsatility index; RTF, return to flow; RV, right ventricular. J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review in velocity over the cardiac cycle, which reflects changes in flow through the pump due to native ventricular contraction and diastolic mitral inflow (Figure 6). Although there is not an established normal range of inflow cannula or outflow graft velocities, any significant change in these velocities over time warrants further evaluation and should be interpreted in the clinical context of the individual patient. Assessment of Right Ventricular Function As discussed previously, it is crucial for patients supported by CF-LVADs to have relatively preserved RV function in order to maintain adequate rightsided cardiac output. Syndromes of right-sided heart failure can occur acutely in the early postoperative period or can have a more chronic presentation several years after implantation [31, 32]. Any interval worsening of RV dilation or the previously described indices of RV function support the diagnosis of RV failure after CF-LVAD implantation in the appropriate clinical context. In addition, echocardiography also provides a simple noninvasive way of detecting hemodynamics suggestive of RV decompensation. 115 Patients with right-sided heart failure after ventricular assist device (VAD) implantation typically experience a syndrome of RV volume overload as the right side of the heart struggles to match the effective forward flow provided by a CF-LVAD. As this progresses, the right ventricle becomes progressively dilated, functional tricuspid regurgitation worsens, and right-sided filling pressures become severely elevated. The echocardiographic estimation of right atrial and RV systolic pressure using the inferior vena cava diameter and tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity are well validated [8]. These methods appear to retain their accuracy in patients following CF-LVAD implantation [33]. Significant dilation of the inferior vena cava with minimal or no inspiratory collapse together with a relatively low tricuspid regurgitant jet velocity (less than 2.5 m/s in the setting of a dilated inferior vena cava) is the echocardiographic correlate of RV failure diagnosed by invasive hemodynamics, and highly suggests post–VAD implantation right-sided heart failure. The onset of RV failure after VAD implantation portends a poor prognosis and increased mortality. Treatment options are limited unless patients are candidates for heart transplantation or biventricular support [31]. Symptomatically, patients benefit from intravenous diuretics and initiation of inotropes for RV support. If septal morphology and ventricular Figure 6 Inflow Cannula Velocity Measured from an Off-axis Apical Three-chamber View from a Patient with a Normally Functioning Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device. Note the relatively low velocities, 30–80 cm/s, with phasic variation throughout the cardiac cycle reflecting some degree of native pulsatile flow. 116 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review A B Figure 7 Tricuspid Regurgitation Doppler and Inferior Vena Cava M-mode Imaging from a Patient with Severe Right Ventricular Failure Following Continuous-flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Placement. Note the combination of the low velocity of tricuspid regurgitation (A) and a severely dilated inferior vena cava with absence of inspiratory collapse (B), consistent with high right atrial pressure and low right ventricular contractile function. chamber dimensions suggest excessive LV emptying and severe asymmetric dilation of the right ventricle relative to the left ventricle, a decrease in pump speed can also be helpful. Figure 7 illustrates images from a patient with post–VAD implantation right-sided heart failure. Conclusion and Take-Home Message The incidence of advanced heart failure patients who are potential candidates for mechanical support with CF-LVADs is steadily increasing worldwide. Echocardiography is a simple, noninvasive, yet highly useful diagnostic imaging modality that provides easily interpretable information that is instrumental in the care of patients supported by this relatively complex technology. It is crucial to remember that the utility of echocardiography is best when the images are understood in the clinical context of each individual patient, and decisions should never be made solely on the basis of the results of a single study. J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review 117 Conflict of Interest Funding The authors declare no conflict of interest. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or notfor-profit sectors. References 1. Fonarow GC, Yancy CW, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Spertus JA, Heidenreich PA. Potential impact of optimal implementation of evidence-based heart failure therapies on mortality. Am Heart J 2011;161:1024–30.e1023. 2. Christiansen S, Brose S, Autschbach R. [Surgical therapy of end-stage heart failure]. Herz 2003;28:380–92. 3. Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Boyle AJ, Aaronson KD, et al. Use of a continuousflow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med 2007;357:885–96. 4. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:e147–239. 5. Topilsky Y, Oh JK, Shah DK, Boilson BA, Schirger JA, Kushwaha SS, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of adverse outcomes after continuous left ventricular assist device implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2011;4:211–22. 6. Neragi-Miandoab S, Goldstein D, Bello R, Michler R, D’Alessandro D. Right ventricular dysfunction following continuous flow left ventricular assist device placement in 51 patients: predicators and outcomes. J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;7:60. 7.Vollkron M, Voitl P, Ta J, Wieselthaler G, Schima H. Suction events during left ventricular support and ventricular arrhythmias. J Heart Lung Transplant 2007;26:819–25. 8. Rudski 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; quiz 786-688. 9. Puwanant S, Hamilton KK, Klodell CT, Hill JA, Schofield RS, Cleeton TS, et al. Tricuspid annular motion as a predictor of severe right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:1102–7. 10.Zoghbi WA, Enriquez-Sarano M, Foster E, Grayburn PA, Kraft CD, Levine RA, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of the severity of native valvular regurgitation with two-dimensional and Doppler echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2003;16:777–802. 11.Griffin BP, Flachskampf FA, Siu S, Weyman AE, Thomas JD. The effects of regurgitant orifice size, chamber compliance, and systemic vascular resistance on aortic regurgitant velocity slope and pressure half-time. Am Heart J 1991;122:1049–56. 12.Topilsky Y, Oh JK, Atchison FW, Shah DK, Bichara VM, Schirger JA, et al. Echocardiographic findings in stable outpatients with properly functioning HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2011;24:157–69. 13.Gregory SD, Stevens MC, Wu E, Fraser JF, Timms D. In vitro evalu- ation of aortic insufficiency with a rotary left ventricular assist device. Artif Organs 2013;37:802–9. 14.McKellar SH, Deo S, Daly RC, Durham LA, Joyce LD, Stulak JM, et al. Durability of central aortic valve closure in patients with continuous flow left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:344–8. 15.Atluri P, Fairman AS, MacArthur JW, Goldstone AB, Cohen JE, Howard JL, et al. Continuous flow left ventricular assist device implant significantly improves pulmonary hypertension, right ventricular contractility, and tricuspid valve competence. J Card Surg 2013;28:770–5. 16.Piacentino V, Williams ML, Depp T, Garcia-Huerta K, Blue L, Lodge AJ, et al. Impact of tricuspid valve regurgitation in patients treated with implantable left ventricular assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg 2011;91:1342–6; discussion 1346–7. 17. Potapov EV, Stepanenko A, Dandel M, Kukucka M, Lehmkuhl HB, Weng Y, et al. Tricuspid incompetence and geometry of the right ventricle as predictors of right ventricular function after implantation of a left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:1275–81. 18.Piacentino V, Ganapathi AM, Stafford-Smith M, Hsieh MK, Patel CB, Simeone AA, et al. Utility of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures for patients undergoing implantation of a continuous-flow left ventricular device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;144:1217–21. 19. Maltais S, Topilsky Y, Tchantchaleishvili V, McKellar SH, Durham LA, Joyce LD, et al. 118 J.R. Vilaro et al., Continuous Flow LVAD Therapy: Echo Review Surgical treatment of tricuspid valve insufficiency promotes early reverse remodeling in patients with axial-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012;143:1370–6. 20. Robertson JO, Grau-Sepulveda MV, Okada S, O’Brien SM, Matthew Brennan J, Shah AS, et al. Concomitant tricuspid valve surgery during implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons database analysis. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014;33:609–17. 21.Engin C, Yagdi T, Balcioglu O, Erkul S, Baysal B, Oguz E, et al. Left ventricular assist device implantation in heart failure patients with a left ventricular thrombus. Transplant Proc 2013;45:1017–9. 22.Thanigaraj S, Schechtman KB, Pérez JE. Improved echocardiographic delineation of left ventricular thrombus with the use of intravenous second-generation contrast image enhancement. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 1999;12:1022–6. 23. Meissner I, Whisnant JP, Khandheria BK, Spittell PC, O’Fallon WM, Pascoe RD, et al. Prevalence of potential risk factors for stroke assessed by transesophageal echocardiography and carotid ultrasonography: the SPARC study. Stroke Prevention: Assessment of Risk in a Community. Mayo Clin Proc 1999;74:862–9. 24.Srinivas CV, Collins N, Borger MA, Horlick E, Murphy PM. Hypoxemia complicating LVAD insertion: novel application of the Amplatzer PFO occlusion device. J Card Surg 2007;22:156–8. 25. Marriott K, Manins V, Forshaw A, Wright J, Pascoe R. Detection of right-to-left atrial communication using agitated saline contrast imaging: experience with 1162 patients and recommendations for echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2013;26:96–102. 26. Estep JD, Stainback RF, Little SH, Torre G, Zoghbi WA. The role of echocardiography and other imaging modalities in patients with left ventricular assist devices. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2010;3:1049–64. 27.Liao KK, Miller L, Toher C, Ormaza S, Herrington CS, Bittner HB, et al. Timing of transesophageal echocardiography in diagnosing patent foramen ovale in patients supported with left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;75:1624–6. 28.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;60:1764–75. 29.Shah NR, Cevik C, Hernandez A, Gregoric ID, Frazier OH, Stainback RF. Transthoracic echocardio graphy of the HeartWare left ventricular assist device. J Card Fail 2012;18:745–8. 30.Topilsky Y, Maltais S, Oh JK, Atchison FW, Perrault LP, Carrier M, et al. Focused review on transthoracic echocardiographic assessment of patients with continuous axial left ventricular assist devices. Cardiol Res Pract 2011;2011:187434. 31. Kormos 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. 32. Takeda K, Takayama H, Colombo PC, Jorde UP, Yuzefpolskaya M, Fukuhara S, et al. Late right heart failure during support with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices adversely affects posttransplant outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:667–74. 33.Estep JD, Vivo RP, Krim SR, Cordero-Reyes AM, Elias B, Loebe M, et al. Echocardiographic Evaluation of Hemodynamics in Patients With Systolic Heart Failure Supported by a ContinuousFlow LVAD. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:1231–41.