Share this article on:

Opening of Aortic Valve During Exercise Is Key to Preventing Development of Aortic Insufficiency During Ventricular Assist Device Treatment

Imamura, Teruhiko*; Kinugawa, Koichiro*; Nitta, Daisuke; Hatano, Masaru; Ono, Minoru

doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000247
Adult Circulatory Support

Although we previously demonstrated that opening of the native aortic valve (AV) at rest prevents development of aortic insufficiency (AI) during continuous-flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support, the clinical impact of native AV opening during exercise remained unknown. We enrolled 37 patients with a closed native AV at rest 3 months after CF LVAD implantation and followed them from 2006 to 2014. Seven patients (19%) who achieved opening of the native AV during cardiopulmonary exercise testing at 3 months (opening AV group) had higher exercise tolerability and improved left ventricular contractility during exercise compared with those with a closed native AV (closed AV group) (p < 0.05 for all). The opening group experienced no AI at 6 months and had a higher readmission-free rate because of cardiovascular events compared with the closed group during the 2 years study period (100% vs. 56%, p = 0.005). Among those with a closed AV, use of the centrifugal pump was a significant predictor of AI-free status (p < 0.05; odds ratio, 5.400). In conclusion, opening of the native AV during exercise and centrifugal pump use were key to preventing the development of AI. Aggressive cardiac rehabilitation may have a prophylactic impact on development of AI during CF LVAD treatment.

From the *Department of Therapeutic Strategy for Heart Failure, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, and Department of Cardiac Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Submitted for consideration February 2, 2015; accepted for publication in revised form April 13, 2015.

Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Correspondence: Koichiro Kinugawa, MD, PhD, Department of Therapeutic Strategy for Heart Failure, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113–8655, Japan. Email: kinugawa-tky@umin.ac.jp.

In the era of continuous-flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) use, with improved patient survival owing to the device superiority and sophisticated perioperative management,1 development of aortic insufficiency (AI) still remains one of the major postoperative concerns that reduces patients’ quality of life.2–4 Progressed AI decreases exercise capacity, worsens congestive symptoms, and increases the risk for thrombosis because of a reduced forward flow and enhanced retrograde flow through the native aortic valve (AV) and formation of turbulence in the remodeled aortic root.5

We previously demonstrated that opening of the native AV at rest prevented the development of AI.6 However, some patients did not experience AI despite their native AV remaining closed at rest. Although opening of the native AV at rest has been analyzed,2,3,7,8 no observational study has been conducted on this during exercise. We hypothesized that patients who achieved opening of the native AV only during exercise (the opening AV group) also had lesser AI along with a better clinical course compared with those with a continuously closed native AV (the closed AV group). Therefore, we assessed the relation between opening of the native AV during exercise and development of AI during CF LVAD treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Patient Selection

A total of 58 consecutive patients who had received CF LVAD were followed at our institute from 2006 to 2014; this included postoperative scheduled echocardiography. Of these, we enrolled 37 patients (axial pump, 16; centrifugal pump, 21), in whom the native AV remained closed at rest at 3 months. Twenty-one patients were excluded because they had already achieved native AV opening at rest. No patients had preoperative AI.

All patients had received guideline-directed medical therapy and had been listed for transplant preoperatively. No patients were assigned to the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile 1. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before the surgery. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo.

After LVAD implantation, antiheart failure medications were titrated considering patient hemodynamics. Rotation speeds were adjusted considering the results of scheduled hemodynamic and echocardiographic studies.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Evaluated Variables

All enrolled patients underwent symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPXT) at 3 months. Baseline variables including demographic and echocardiographic parameters were obtained at the same time. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was calculated using Simpson’s method. The grade of mitral regurgitation was classified as: none, 0; mild, 1; moderate, 2; and severe, 3. Opening of the native AV was observed for a minute using the M-mode. Less than 30% of opening per native heart beat was defined as “native AV remained closed,” based on Slaughter’s suggestion.8

Demographic, echocardiographic, and hemodynamic parameters within a week before LVAD implantation were also obtained. Heart failure (HF) duration was calculated as the duration between the time of HF diagnosis and LVAD implantation. The cumulative dose of anti-HF medication was calculated considering each daily dose of anti-HF medication and the prescribed duration.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing

Symptom-limited CPXT was carried out using a cycle ergometer with a ventilator expired gas analysis (AE-300S; Minato Igaku, Osaka, Japan) at 3 months. The procedure was initiated as 4 minutes warm-up at 20 W, which was followed by a 10 W/minute ramp protocol, as we have previously described.9 Oxygen consumption (VO2), carbon dioxide production (VCO2), and minute ventilation (VE) were measured continuously during the procedure on a breath-by-breath basis.

An echocardiographic study also was executed during exercise. Opening of the native AV was observed in the same manner as described above for a minute just after the initiation of the ramp test. The LVAD flow was estimated based on its algorithm at rest and during exercise.

Back to Top | Article Outline

End-Point

Echocardiography was performed at 6 months. The end-point was the development of AI at 6 months, which was defined as mild or worse aortic regurgitation, as we have previously defined.10 Readmission because of cardiovascular events or all-cause death was counted, and heart transplantation or LVAD explantation was eliminated.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS Statistics 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). The statistical tests were two tailed, and a p value less than 0.05 was considered significant. All data were expressed as mean ± SD. Continuous variables were compared using the unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate, and categorical variables were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Baseline variables between the opening and closed AV groups were compared using the unpaired t-test or Mann–Whitney U test, as appropriate. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the preoperative predictors of AV opening. Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed to assess the readmission-free ratio or survival in patients with/without native AV opening during exercise in the postoperative 2 years study period. Cox analyses were performed to analyze predictability of AV opening and age for readmission.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Baseline Characteristics

A total of 37 patients (age, 42 ± 13 years; 26 men), in whom the native AV remained closed at rest at 3 months, were enrolled (Table 1). All patients had a hemodynamically stable condition, with cardiac index greater than 1.8 L/min/m2, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure less than 18 mm Hg, and an average LVEF 18% ± 8%.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Native AV Opening During Exercise

All participants underwent CPXT at 3 months, and 7 patients (19%) achieved native AV opening during all exercise procedures (a typical case is shown in Figure 1). These patients were significantly younger than those in the closed AV group. There were no differences in the maintenance doses of anti-HF agents between those with/without native AV opening. Hemodynamic and echocardiographic variables at rest were comparable between the opening and closed AV groups (Table 2), whereas the opening AV group had more improved exercise capacity along with more improved left ventricular (LV) contractility during exercise compared with the closed AV group (Table 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Relation Between Native AV Opening During Exercise and Development of AI

All seven patients in the opening AV group did not experience AI at 6 months. Of the remaining 30 patients in the closed AV group, 13 developed AI (43%) (Figure 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preoperative Predictors of Native AV Opening During Exercise

Among the preoperative parameters, the lower cumulative dose of carvedilol was the only significant predictor of native AV opening during exercise (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Preoperative Predictors of AI-Free Status Among Those With Closed AV

Among the remaining 30 patients with a closed AV, logistic regression analyses revealed that the use of the centrifugal pump was the only significant predictor of AI-free status (p = 0.036 and odds ratio, 5.400) (Table 4).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Prognosis and Native AV Opening During Exercise

The opening AV group had a higher readmission-free ratio because of cardiovascular events including cerebrovascular thrombosis, heart failure, and ventricular tachyarrhythmia (100% vs. 56%, p = 0.005; Figure 3A) or survival (100% vs. 84%, p = 0.308; Figure 3B) compared with the closed AV group during the postoperative 2 years study period.

Cox regression analyses showed a significant predictability of AV opening for readmission-free rate (p = 0.048; hazard ratio, 0.018), whereas younger age was not a significant predictor (p = 0.241).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Comment

We demonstrated here that 1) some patients could achieve native AV opening during exercise at 3 months although their native AV remained closed at rest, 2) these patients had better exercise tolerability and more improved LV contractility during exercise compared with the closed AV group, 3) no patients in the opening AV group experienced AI development at 6 months, and 4) these patients had a higher readmission-free ratio because of cardiovascular events during the 2 years CF LVAD treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Clinical Evil of AI Development in the Era of Long-Term CF LVAD Treatment

Aortic insufficiency remains one of the unsolved concerns even in the era of CF LVAD because it reduces systemic circulation and increases intracardiac pressure.3 Clinically, AI facilitates congestive symptoms, ventricular tachyarrhythmia, and dyspnea on effort and may reduce patients’ quality of life or survival.2,5,7,10

Despite the recently proposed surgical interventions such as AV replacement or repair, no procedures with few complications have been established thus far.4 Therefore, optimal patient selection and a prophylactic strategy should be established to prevent the development of AI.

Here, we assessed AI at 6 months because we previously demonstrated that no de novo AI developed after 6 months,5 and some patients were eliminated because of death or transplant soon after the 6th month.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Opening of Native AV at Rest and Development of AI

The opening of native AV at rest is sufficient to prevent development of AI,2,6,7,10,11 probably because daily opening of native AV would avoid fusion of native AV, increase pulse pressure in the aortic root, and prevent degenerative remodeling of the aortic root.12–14

Opening of the native AV is achieved by sufficient recovery of LV contractility during LVAD support because intracardiac pressure in the systolic phase should exceed that of the aortic root to open the native AV.2 In this study, we assessed opening of the native AV at 3 months because LV reverse remodeling is accomplished by approximately the 3rd month after LVAD implantation.15

Back to Top | Article Outline

Opening of Native AV During Exercise and Development of AI

Among those with a closed AV at rest, approximately 20% of patients achieved opening of the native AV during exercise. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to discuss opening of the native AV during exercise under LVAD support.

The opening AV group had significantly improved LVEF during exercise, whereas these patients had a comparatively low LVEF at rest compared with the closed AV group. Such patients would have an LV contractile reserve.16 They also had a significantly greater improvement in exercise capacity, probably because of enhanced cardiac contractility during exercise. Younger patients had such a higher cardiac reserve. Young age may be an important factor for AV opening during exercise although it was not a significant predictor of the readmission-free ratio by Cox regression analyses.

Surprisingly, no patients in the opening AV group experienced AI (Figure 2). The native AV started opening soon after the initiation of CPXT. They will achieve native AV opening during light-labor activities in daily life. Echocardiography performed only at rest may not always be sufficient for assessing the cardiac condition including the opening of the native AV during daily living activities.

Insufficient preoperative β-blocker treatment was the only significant predictor of native AV opening during exercise. These patients have a higher possibility of being responders to β-blocker treatment under LVAD treatment because they have a lesser chance of undergoing trial β-blocker titration because of acute worsening of HF, as we have previously demonstrated.17

Among the remaining 30 patients with a closed AV, 17 were able to avoid AI development. Logistic regression analyses revealed that use of the centrifugal pump was the only preoperative predictor of AI-free status in this population. Those receiving centrifugal LVAD have higher pulse pressure compared with those receiving the axial type. Preserved pulse pressure prevents both remodeling of the aortic root and degeneration of AV, which facilitates the development of AI.5 Therefore, use of the centrifugal pump would be another factor that prevented AI.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Clinical Impact of Opening of Native AV During Exercise

Patients in the opening AV group had a higher readmission-free ratio because of cardiovascular events compared with those in the closed AV group (Figure 3). They were free from AI, which would increase intracardiac pressure because of a retrograde flow through the native AV that facilitates congestion and ventricular tachyarrhythmia. Forward flow through the native AV, probably observed during daily activity, would reduce the formation of turbulence and a thrombus in the aortic root, which may prevent occurrence of fatal cerebrovascular thrombosis.5,18 Those with the opening AV were younger, but young age was not found to be a significant predictor of the readmission-free rate.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Intervention for Facilitating Opening of Native AV

There has been no established strategy to facilitate the opening of the native AV and prevent development of AI thus far.

Native AV has a tendency toward opening under a lower rotation speed,11 but the cardiac output is often decreased to a lower level, which is required by the patients for daily living activities. Three-fifths of patients who received Jarvik 2000, which has an intermittent lower speed mode, experienced AI. Adjustment of rotation speed may be insufficient to open the native AV.

Aggressive cardiac rehabilitation, as recommended in the 2013 International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) guidelines improves exercise tolerability and contractile reserve,19 which may facilitate opening of the native AV during daily activity as seen in our results. However, implementation of a specific rehabilitation program to open the native AV would remain a future concern.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Study Limitation

1. The current study was performed retrospectively in a very small population in a single center. In the analysis using the unpaired t-test, the power was 0.5 with an effect size of 0.8 and error probability of 0.05. The results should be confirmed in a future multicenter large-scale study that includes prospective cardiac rehabilitation.

2. All participants had preserved exercise tolerance and could undergo CPXT. Our result would not be adopted in those with low exercise tolerability. However, native AV would not open in patients who are sick. Opening of the AV is expected in those with sufficient exercise tolerability and cardiac reserve.

3. We enrolled only five patients who were receiving Jarvik 2000. The advantage of its intermittent lower speed mode in facilitating opening of the native AV and preventing AI remains unconfirmed.

4. We performed echocardiography at 3 and 6 months after LVAD implantation. Monthly procedures would have strengthened our results.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Opening of the native AV during exercise was sufficient to prevent the development of AI in patients with a closed native AV at rest. Aggressive cardiac rehabilitation to improve exercise tolerability may have a prophylactic impact on development of AI during CF LVAD treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Kinugawa K. How to treat stage D heart failure? When to implant left ventricular assist devices in the era of continuous flow pumps? Circ J. 2011;75:2038–2045
2. Toda K, Fujita T, Domae K, Shimahara Y, Kobayashi J, Nakatani T. Late aortic insufficiency related to poor prognosis during left ventricular assist device support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:929–934
3. Deo SV, Sharma V, Cho YH, Shah IK, Park SJ. De novo aortic insufficiency during long-term support on a left ventricular assist device: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ASAIO J. 2014;60:183–188
4. Holtz J, Teuteberg J. Management of aortic insufficiency in the continuous flow left ventricular assist device population. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2014;11:103–110
5. Imamura T, Kinugawa K, Fujino T, et al. Aortic Insufficiency in patients with sustained leftventricular systolic dysfunction after axial flow assist device implantation. Circ J. 2015:104–11
6. Imamura T, Kinugawa K, Nitta D, et al. Opening of Native Aortic Valve Accomplished AfterLeft Ventricular Assist Device Implantation in Patients With Insufficient Preoperative Beta-BlockerTreatment. Int Heart J. 2015 Apr 23 PMID: 25902887
7. Aggarwal A, Raghuvir R, Eryazici P, et al. The development of aortic insufficiency in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-supported patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;95:493–498
8. Slaughter MS, Pagani FD, Rogers JG, et al.HeartMate II Clinical Investigators. Clinical management of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in advanced heart failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29(4 suppl):S1–S39
9. Imamura T, Kinugawa K, Nitta D, et al. Novel scoring system using postoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts future explantation of left ventricular assist device. Circ J. 2015;79(3):560–6
10. Hatano M, Kinugawa K, Shiga T, et al. Less frequent opening of the aortic valve and a continuous flow pump are risk factors for postoperative onset of aortic insufficiency in patients with a left ventricular assist device. Circ J. 2011;75:1147–1155
11. Jorde UP, Uriel N, Nahumi N, et al. Prevalence, significance, and management of aortic insufficiency in continuous flow left ventricular assist device recipients. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:310–319
12. Hata H, Fujita T, Ishibashi-Ueda H, Nakatani T, Kobayashi J. Pathological analysis of the aortic valve after long-term left ventricular assist device support. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:193–197
13. Pak SW, Uriel N, Takayama H, et al. Prevalence of de novo aortic insufficiency during long-term support with left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:1172–1176
14. Westaby S, Bertoni GB, Clelland C, Nishinaka T, Frazier OH. Circulatory support with attenuated pulse pressure alters human aortic wall morphology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133:575–576
15. Madigan JD, Barbone A, Choudhri AF, et al. Time course of reverse remodeling of the left ventricle during support with a left ventricular assist device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121:902–908
16. Ciampi Q, Pratali L, Citro R, Piacenti M, Villari B, Picano E. Identification of responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy by contractile reserve during stress echocardiography. Eur J Heart Fail. 2009;11:489–496
17. Imamura T, Kinugawa K, Hatano M, et al. Preoperative beta-blocker treatment is a key for deciding left ventricular assist device implantation strategy as a bridge to recovery. J Artif Organs. 2014;17:23–32
18. Karmonik C, Partovi S, Loebe M, et al. Computational fluid dynamics in patients with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support show hemodynamic alterations in the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:1326.e1–1333.e1
19. Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, et al.International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: Executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:157–187

ventricular assist device; cardiopulmonary exercise; reverse remodeling; heart failure

Copyright © 2015 by the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs