Comment
ESHF in patient with CHD who survive into adulthood remains today a
challenge for both HT and VAD implantation, because of the complex
pathophysiology and potential comorbidities.
To date, publications regarding outcomes and use of LVADs in ACHD
patients are limited.
Of the 16,182 adult patients in the Interagency Registry for
Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database, only 126
(0.8%) have CHD.1 Additional analysis on outcomes
shows that ACHD patients with LVADs have similar survival, adverse event
rates and similar improvements in functional capacity and quality of
life compared with non-ACHD patients.6 Actually,
INTERMACS registry 1 shows an overall-survival about
70% at 24 months after implantation of LVADs in ACHD patients, but no
data are available on survival beyond 24 post-operative months.
Other literature data on VAD-surgery in ACHD patients consist mainly of
case-reports or small series. Of note, besides our patient who reported
the first implant ever of a HeartMate II in SVIT2,
other HeartMate II implantations in adults with SVIT are only reported
twice: Ariyachaipanich et al.3 described a case of
right ventricular support with HeartMate II in a 56-year-old man with a
history of SVIT as destination therapy (DT). The patient had an
uncomplicated postoperative course and did not require any readmission
during the first year after surgery. No data were available beyond the
first postoperative year. Menachem et al.4 reported a
case of a 75-year-old female with SVIT implanted with HeartMate II as
DT. She expired early because of neurologic complications.
To the best of our knowledge therefore, this is the first documented
case of 10-year survival after HeartMate II implantation in a patient
with SVIT. Interestingly enough, long-term follow-up was quite
uneventful for more than 8 years, and no device failure, pump
thrombosis, or stroke occurred ever during ten-year follow-up, allowing
an overall excellent quality of life for a decade. Of note, the
prolonged withdrawal of both anti-platelet and anti-thrombotic regimens
during the last haemorrhagic event did not led to VAD thrombosis or
device malfunction, nor to thromboembolic events, possibly in light of a
long-lasting complete formation of neo-intimal tissue
with endothelialization of the inner surfaces of the device.
In conclusion, ESHF remains nowadays the leading cause of death for ACHD
patients. The ease availability of LVADs provides an elegant solution to
these complex scenarios, sometimes allowing long-lasting and consistent
results as in the case reported. The recent availability of new
generations of these devices can possibly raise the rod further in the
next future.