Download PDF
Int J Angiol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2706-3173
Letter to the Editor

Optimizing LVAD Outcomes: Lessons from a Single-Center Experience

Authors

  • Xingyue Feng

    1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China

  • Xinyu Nie

    1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China

  • Can Xu

    1   Department of Cardiac Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

We read with great interest the article by Zhang et al, “Application of Left Ventricular Assist Device in Heart Failure Management: A Single-Center Experience” (2025).[1] The study provides important lessons for optimizing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) outcomes in real-world practice. Reporting on 127 LVAD implants performed between 2017 and 2021, the authors highlight substantial NYHA class improvement, with a 2-year survival of 61.9% for 2017 to 2020 implants compared with a 78% early survival among post-2021 recipients.

An important consideration is the comparability of these survival figures. Different follow-up durations limit direct interpretation. Presenting Kaplan–Meier survival curves and standardized event rates per 100 patient-years would align with best practices in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) and European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS).[2] [3] For context, recent International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry (IMACS) data show 2-year survival above 70% in most regions,[2] and EUROMACS reports a median of 72.5%.[3] Benchmarking against these registries could help identify both institutional strengths and opportunities for improvement.

Another point worth noting is the high incidence of postoperative respiratory failure (44.8%), nearly twice that reported in large registries.[2] [3] Contributing factors may include high preoperative ventilator dependence, unassessed diaphragmatic dysfunction, and liberal perioperative fluid strategies. A 2024 multicenter study demonstrated that preoperative diaphragm ultrasound screening combined with goal-directed fluid therapy reduced respiratory failure risk by 27%.[4] Integrating such a standardized extubation pathway may offer considerable benefit.

Equally important is the reported 37% incidence of driveline infection. Beyond surgical tunneling, a 2023 multi-institutional protocol incorporating structured exit-site care, patient self-inspection training, and photographic monitoring lowered infection rates by more than 30%.[5] We believe adopting and prospectively evaluating such a bundle could yield immediate clinical gains.

We also note the absence of device- and surgical approach-specific stratification, which limits interpretation. While the transition from pulsatile to continuous-flow devices and the potential advantages of the HeartMate 3 are mentioned, the Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3 (MOMENTUM3) trial demonstrated HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device's (HM3) superiority in freedom from stroke and pump thrombosis.[6] More recently, a 2024 multicenter analysis found that HM3 speed modulation may further reduce gastrointestinal bleeding.[7] Stratifying complications such as stroke (26%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (24.4%) by device type and surgical access could help identify modifiable risk factors.

This leads us to several clinically relevant questions: Which patient-level variables predict early respiratory failure, and can they be addressed preoperatively? How do bridge-to-transplant and destination therapy recipients differ in outcomes? Could preimplant right ventricular optimization, including pulmonary vasodilators or temporary right ventricle support, reduce the observed 14.2% incidence of postoperative right heart failure?

In conclusion, these lessons from a single-center experience, when integrated with standardized reporting and prevention-focused strategies, have the potential to enhance LVAD care. We hope these observations will stimulate further research and dialogue aimed at advancing mechanical circulatory support outcomes worldwide.



Publication History

Received: 09 August 2025

Accepted: 19 September 2025

Article published online:
15 October 2025

© 2025. International College of Angiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA