Influence of implantation strategy in the transition from temporary left ventricular assist device to durable mechanical circulatory support

Background: Bridging from temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device (tLVAD) to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) is playing an increasing role in the treatment of terminally ill heart failure patients. Scant data exits about the best implantation strategy. The aim of this study is to analyze differences in dLVAD implantation technique and effects on patient outcomes. Methods: Data from 341 patients (19 European centers), between 01/2017 and 10/2022, who underwent bridge to bridge implantation from tLVAD to dLVAD were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of the different implantation techniques on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), extracorporeal life support (ECLS) or tLVAD were compared. Results: Durable LVAD implantation was performed employing CPB in 70% of cases (n = 238, group 1), ECLS in 11% (n = 38, group 2) and tLVAD in 19% (n = 65, group 3).Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences in age (p = 0.140), BMI (p = 0.388), creatinine (p = 0.659), Meld score (p = 0.190) and rate of dialysis (p = 0.110). Group 3 had significantly less patients with preoperatively invasive ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before tLVAD implantation (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001 respectively). Concomitant procedures were performed more often in group 1 and 2 compared to group 3 (24%, 37% and 5%, respectively, p < 0.001).The 30-day mortality showed a significant better survival after inverse probability of treatment weighting in group 3, but the 1-year mortality showed no significant differences between groups (p = 0.012 and 0.581, respectively).Post-operative complications like rate of RVAD implantation or re-thoracotomy due to bleeding, post-operative respiratory failure and renal replacement therapy showed no significant differences between groups.Freedom from first adverse event like stroke, driveline infection or pump thrombosis during follow-up was not significantly different between groups.Post-operative blood transfusion within 24-hours were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to surgery on tLVAD support (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). Conclusions: In our analysis, the transition from tLVAD to dLVAD without further circulatory support did not show a difference in post-operative long-term survival, but a better 30-day survival was reported. The implantation by using only tLVAD showed a reduction in post-operative transfusion rates, right heart failure and the re-thoracotomy rate without increasing the risk of postoperative stroke or pump thrombosis. In this small cohort study, our data supports the hypothesis that we could demonstrate dLVAD implantation on tLVAD is a safe and feasible technique in selected patients.