Background: We previously demonstrated better inflow cannula (IFC) position and reduced pump thrombosis with a centrifugal-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) compared to an axial-flow device. We hypothesized that implant technique and patient anatomy would affect CF-LVAD IFC positioning and that malposition would impact LV unloading and outcomes. Methods: Pre- and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans were reviewed for patients with six-month follow-up. Malposition was quantified using angular deviation from an ideal line in two planes. IFC position was compared between conventional sternotomy (CS) and lateral thoracotomy-hemisternotomy (LTHS). The influence of LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD), body mass index (BMI), and CT-derived anatomy was determined. LV unloading was assessed by LVAD flow index (FI) and pre- to post-LVAD decrement in mitral regurgitation (MR) and LVEDD. Outcome measures were pump thrombus or stroke (PT/eCVA); 30-day and total heart failure-related readmissions (HFRAs); and survival free of surgery for LVAD dysfunction. Results: One hundred fourteen patients met criteria. Total malposition magnitude was higher for CS than LTHS (p=0.04). Midline-LV apex distance predicted lateral-plane malposition (p=0.04), while apex-LVOT angle predicted both anterior- (p=0.01) and lateral-plane (p=0.04) malposition. Lateral-plane malposition predicted decreased LVAD FI at three (p=0.03) and six (p=0.01) months. Total malposition magnitude predicted increased 30-day HFRAs (p=0.04), while lateral-plane malposition predicted more overall HFRAs (p=0.01). Malposition was not associated with PT/eCVA, changes in MR or LVEDD, or survival free of surgical revision. Conclusions: Patient anatomy and surgical technique were associated with CF-LVAD IFC malposition. In turn, malposition was associated with increased readmissions and decreased LVAD FI.

Background: Despite improved survival and morbidity after durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD), outcomes for cardiogenic shock patients are suboptimal. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) can permit optimization prior to dLVAD. Excellent outcomes have been observed using minimally-invasive dLVAD implantation. However, some feel tMCS contraindicates this approach. To evaluate whether left thoracotomy/hemisternotomy (LTHS) dLVAD placement is safe in this setting, we compared patients who did and did not require tMCS. Methods: Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among those bridged with ECMO, IABP, or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics, comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intra- and postoperative outcomes. Results: Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily INTERMACS 3 (56%), while IABP recipients were mainly INTERMACS 2 (45%). All ECMO patients were INTERMACS 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant procedures and red-cell transfusions in ECMO patients. ICU and hospital length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and twelve-month survival were: No tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%; ECMO: 81%, 81% (p=0.45). Conclusions: Patients with cardiogenic shock can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.