Review Article

Mechanical Circulatory Support for Right Ventricular Failure

Abstract

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70–75%. RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery in conjunction with left ventricular failure, or may be isolated in certain circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism or following left ventricular assist device placement. Medical management includes volume optimisation and inotropic and vasopressor support, and a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support for persistent RV failure. Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure. Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow RV assist devices, surgically implanted RV assist devices and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. In this review, the authors discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of mechanical circulatory support for RV failure.

Disclosure: EMD is on the Cardiac Failure Review editorial board; this did not influence peer review. AJK has received institutional grants from Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abiomed, CSI, Siemens and Philips. YN is a consultant for Abbott. ARG has previously received honoraria from Abiomed and is an unpaid consultant to Abiomed. None of these organisations had any role in the drafting of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Correspondence: A Reshad Garan, Advanced Heart Failure and Mechanical Circulatory Support, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 185 Pilgrim Rd, Boston, MA 02215, US. E: agaran@bidmc.harvard.edu

Support: Funding: ARG is supported by National Institutes of Health grant number UL1 TR001873.

Open access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Right ventricular (RV) failure is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality rates estimated as high as 70–75%.1–3 RV failure may occur following cardiac surgery, in conjunction with left ventricular (LV) failure (e.g. in acute decompensated heart failure), or isolated in circumstances, such as inferior MI with RV infarction, pulmonary embolism (PE) or following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement.4–10

Medical management includes volume optimisation, inotropic therapy and vasopressor support; a subset of patients may benefit from mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for persistent RV failure.9,11,12 Increasingly, percutaneous and surgical mechanical support devices are being used for RV failure.1,13–15

Devices for isolated RV support include percutaneous options, such as micro-axial flow pumps and extracorporeal centrifugal flow right ventricular assist devices (RVADs), surgically implanted RVADs and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenators (VA-ECMO). In this review, we will discuss the indications, candidate selection, strategies and outcomes of MCS for RV failure.

Pathophysiology

The primary mechanisms of cardiogenic shock secondary to RV failure include pump failure, volume overload and pressure overload.9 Pump failure leads to a reduction in contractility in the setting of primary myocardial injury (e.g. myocarditis or RV ischaemia). A decreased stroke volume leads to dilation of the RV. This exacerbates tricuspid regurgitation, which may lead to further RV dilation.9

Volume overload can also lead to RV failure. A typical example of this is RV failure following LVAD implantation. When the left ventricle (LV) is unloaded with an LVAD, there is increased venous return to the right side of the heart, which can worsen pre-existing RV failure.16–20 This may be exacerbated by altered position of the interventricular septum, resulting in diminished RV stroke volume. Finally, RV pressure overload may result from decompensated left-sided heart failure, pulmonary hypertension or acute PE.14,21

Medical therapy often involves optimisation of preload with volume expansion or diuretic therapy, reduction of afterload with pulmonary vasodilators and inotropic therapy.9,11 However, the main focus of this review will be on MCS options for patients who have RV failure refractory to medical therapy.

A reason for optimism regarding MCS options for the RV arises from the ability of the RV to recover from various insults relatively quickly. This makes it an attractive target for short-term circulatory support devices. For example, because it has a lower myocardial oxygen demand than the LV, the RV often recovers from ischaemic insults following an acute coronary syndrome.22 In addition, while some patients will experience RV failure after LVAD implantation and require RVAD implantation, interventions designed to improve RV performance often allow for timely wean from these short-term devices.

Commercially Available Right Ventricular Assist Devices

Article image

Patient and Device Selection

Given the availability of both percutaneous and more invasive surgical options, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary when choosing the most appropriate therapy for each patient.23–25 Vital perspectives are provided from shock team, including from advanced heart failure specialists, interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and intensive care physicians.

Patients should be identified early to avoid potentially irreversible end-organ injury. The choice of device will depend on whether the underlying process is a primary RV insult, valvular pathology or biventricular insult (Table 1).9 Considerations include the haemodynamic impact of the device and technical aspects, as well as the exit strategy for these patients, including their candidacy for durable ventricular assist devices and organ transplantation (Figure 1).

Percutaneous Mechanical Support Devices

Intra-aortic Balloon Pump

Intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs) are commonly employed in LV failure due to MI or cardiomyopathy. However, they are less effective in situations of acute RV failure. IABPs help to reduce LV afterload. By unloading the LV, they may reduce right-sided filling pressures and/or increase right coronary perfusion, but these effects are indirect.1 However, studies have shown minimal haemodynamic benefit, especially in RV failure, and suggest many patients will require escalation of mechanical support.26,27

Microaxial Flow Transvalvular RVAD

The Impella RP (Abiomed) is a micro-axial pump that can be inserted percutaneously via the femoral vein. The pump head is 23 Fr and is mounted on an 11 Fr catheter. It provides up to 5 l/min of flow and is approved for use for up to 14 days.1 When it is in the correct position, blood is drawn into the pump from the inferior vena cava-right atrial junction and ejected into the main pulmonary artery (PA). Its appearance on chest radiography is shown in Figure 2, along with other RV support devices.

In the RECOVER RIGHT study, 30 patients with refractory right heart failure prospectively received the Impella RP device. Approximately half of the cohort had developed RV failure following LVAD implantation while the remaining patients had RV failure following cardiotomy or MI.28 A follow-up study ultimately expanded this cohort to 60 patients.29 Haemodynamics improved rapidly with an increase in cardiac index and a decrease in central venous pressure.

In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned about the increased mortality observed in patients supported by the device. This was likely due to use of the device outside the indications described and the severity of illness of patients supported by it. An interim analysis of the post-approval study showed that the survival rate for the patients who would have met the enrollment criteria for the clinical trials was 72.7%, which is similar to the survival rate in the premarket clinical study (73.3%).30

The Impella RP has also shown beneficial haemodynamic effects in patients with acute RV failure in the setting of PE.31,32 In patients who were refractory to volume expansion and inotropic support due to a massive or submassive PE, support with the Impella RP device lowered mean heart rate, increased mean systolic blood pressure and improved the cardiac index.31

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA issued an emergency use authorisation for Impella RP for patients experiencing RV failure or decompensation due to complications of COVID-19 infection,
including PE.33

The Impella RP should be used with caution in patients with tricuspid valve regurgitation. According to the manufacturer, tricuspid valve regurgitation is a contraindication. However, functional tricuspid regurgitation caused by dilation of the valvular annulus may improve with Impella RP treatment.34 Pulmonary regurgitation, however, is a major contraindication for the use of this device.

Management of Right Ventricular Failure with Cardiogenic Shock

Article image

Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices for Right Ventricular Failure

Article image

A significant advantage of the Impella RP is its need for only a single venous access site as well as its percutaneous placement, although only femoral access is possible. Haemolysis has been reported for other Impella devices but less is known about its incidence with Impella RP.

Extra-corporeal Centrifugal Flow Percutaneous RVAD

This device configuration employs an extracorporeal centrifugal-flow pump (e.g. TandemHeart [LivaNova] or CentriMag [Abbott]) with percutaneous venous cannulation that withdraws blood from the right atrium and ejects into the main PA.14 An example of this is the TandemHeart used with the ProtekDuo cannula (LivaNova). Cannulation may be from bilateral femoral venous access, internal jugular access (if the ProtekDuo cannula is used) or a combination of the two sites. This percutaneous configuration has been employed in a variety of scenarios including MI, severe pulmonary hypertension, severe mitral regurgitation, allograft failure following heart transplantation and post-LVAD implant.14,35–39

The THRIVE registry studied 46 patients receiving a TandemHeart RVAD in eight centres.40 The TandemHeart RVAD was used in myocarditis, MI and chronic left heart failure, and following valve surgery, coronary artery bypass grafting, orthotopic heart transplant and LVAD implantation. Within 48 hours of RVAD deployment, haemodynamics, including mean arterial pressure, right atrial pressure, PA systolic pressure and cardiac index, were all significantly improved.

More recently, the ProtekDuo cannula has allowed percutaneous RVAD support to be established with a single venous access cannulation. The ProtekDuo cannula is a dual-lumen cannula that can be placed via the jugular vein and may be positioned in such a way that its distal port enters the PA. When used with an extracorporeal centrifugal blood pump, it can deliver blood from the right atrium to the main PA.41 It is capable of providing 4–5 l/min of flow and allows for ambulation given the lack of femoral cannulation.

In one dual-centre experience, involving 17 patients with RV failure supported by ProtekDuo-RVAD, 23% of patients were successfully weaned.42 However, more than 40% of patients died even with adequate pump flow. Twelve of these patients already had a durable LVAD in place. The benefits of this device configuration include the avoidance of sternotomy, particularly in patients who may have had prior surgery or may be transplant candidates. In certain cases, these devices have been used pre-emptively for RV support in patients undergoing durable LVAD implantation.43

An analysis at our centre compared 19 patients with percutaneous RVADs (both Impella RP and ProtekDuo-RVAD) with 21 patients with surgical RVADs.44 Both percutaneous and surgical support systems provided immediate improvements in haemodynamic profiles despite higher overall flows with surgical RVADs. In addition, percutaneous RVAD use was associated with less morbidity including decreased blood transfusion requirement and a shorter time being mechanically ventilated.

Surgically Implanted Support Devices

CentriMag

The CentriMag (Abbott) is an extracorporeal centrifugal pump that is approved for use as an isolated RVAD for up to 30 days in patients with cardiogenic shock.45 It has also been used as part of an ECMO circuit.46 It lacks mechanical bearings or seals, and its magnetically levitated rotor is thought to reduce blood trauma and mechanical failure.47 The device can be used as an RVAD with inflow and outflow cannulas. The inflow cannula may be positioned in the right atrium through direct insertion via the superior vena cava (or internal jugular, for example) or the inferior vena cava (or femoral vein, for example); alternatively, it may be inserted directly into the RV. The outflow is typically anastomosed to the PA, though reports have included connection through a graft sewn to the PA which allows the RVAD to be removed without reopening the chest.48 For patients with concomitant respiratory failure, an oxygenator may be added to the configuration.

A meta-analysis of 999 patients supported with the CentriMag found that it was used as a ventricular assist device in 72% of cases and as part of an ECMO circuit in 25%.46 Those included had experienced post-cardiotomy shock, post-transplant allograft rejection, RV failure following LVAD placement, as well as some pre-cardiotomy states. At 30 days, survival was 66% in pre-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock, 61% in post-LVAD placement, 54% in post-transplant allograft failure and 41% in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock.46

Biventricular Support Strategies

Surgical Biventricular Assist Device

Full biventricular support can be established with the use of a centrifugal flow extracorporeal pump, such as CentriMag used as an RVAD (described above), or in combination with an extra-corporeal LVAD configuration (typically with cannulation of the LV and aorta). Such a configuration may provide up to 7 l/min of circulatory support with full unloading of both ventricles.

Percutaneous Biventricular Assist Device

The use of the Impella RP device in combination with a percutaneous LVAD from the same manufacturer has been reported in patients with biventricular failure.49–52 The degree of circulatory support with this configuration depends on the maximum flow provided by the percutaneous LVAD, which is in the range of 3.5–5 l/min.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

VA-ECMO has become an increasingly used method of short-term haemodynamic support in cardiogenic shock.53 It simultaneously provides extracorporeal gas exchange and circulatory support in the setting of left, right or biventricular failure.54 The circuit consists of a venous inflow cannula, centrifugal flow pump, oxygenator, heat exchanger and outflow arterial cannula. VA-ECMO can be employed centrally or with peripheral access (e.g. by the femoral vein and artery).

Typically, central VA-ECMO is used in patients unable to be weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass whereas peripheral VA-ECMO can be initiated percutaneously.54,55 It has become increasingly used specifically in cases of fulminant myocarditis, allograft failure after cardiac transplantation, acute RV failure due to PE, RV failure during LVAD support and severe decompensated heart failure.53,56–61 It is important that these patients have an exit strategy, which may include bridge to recovery, durable LVAD or heart transplantation.

VA-ECMO can provide 3–5 l/min of flow depending on cannula size. Since it drains blood directly from the central venous system, it decreases RV preload and therefore can be helpful in cases of RV failure secondary to volume and pressure overload. A distinction should be made, however: while VA ECMO provides circulatory support irrespective of RV or LV function, it differs from a traditional RVAD in that it establishes a parallel circulation as opposed to being an actual ventricular assist device. Because of this, when used for RV support after LVAD implantation, VA-ECMO decreases flow through the LVAD, potentially increasing the risk of device thrombosis.

One disadvantage of VA-ECMO is the increase in afterload with the potential for LV distension and overload.62 The increase in left atrial pressure can induce or worsen pulmonary oedema and lead to stasis within the LV and aortic root.54 Therefore, many clinicians will initiate a ‘venting’ strategy to prevent the complications of LV pressure overload. Options include percutaneous LVAD, such as Impella, IABP, atrial septostomy or direct cannulation of the left atrium or LV.54

A minimally invasive surgical approach combining an extracorporeal LVAD with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (Ec-VAD) for short-term biventricular circulatory support has been used as a bridge to durable LVAD or recovery.63,64 A minithoracotomy is performed for direct LV apical cannulation, which is combined with femoral venous inflow and outflow cannulation of the right or left axillary artery. Compared to conventional extracorporeal surgical LVAD implantation, Ec-VAD patients have shorter cardiopulmonary bypass times and significantly lower incidences of bleeding events with similar flow rates. The 30-day survival was similar between groups.63

Other potential complications of peripheral VA-ECMO include lower extremity ischaemia, which has been shown to occur in 12–22% of patients.65 To obviate this risk, a 6–8 Fr vascular introducer can be placed to provide antegrade distal perfusion to the cannulated extremity. In addition, roughly 25% of all VA-ECMO patients have major bleeding complications.66 This can occur even in patients who are not on anticoagulation therapy.54 Bleeding complications may be reduced by the use of smaller arterial cannulas.67

Durable Biventricular Assist Devices

A significant proportion of individuals require RV MCS following durable LVAD placement and fewer than half of these patients can be weaned from temporary RVAD support.68,69 Therefore, various strategies of durable biventricular support have been employed and described.68,70–72 According to the INTERMACS registry, 618 durable continuous-flow BiVAD procedures have been performed.73

Shebab et al. have described the use of the HeartWare ventricular assist device (HVAD; Medtronic) as a biventricular assist device for patients awaiting cardiac transplantation.71 Six patients underwent right HVAD implantation in the RV free wall while seven patients had it implanted in the RA free wall. RVAD pump thrombosis occurred in three of six RV pumps and one of seven RA pumps. This series demonstrates one of the difficulties in using assist devices in the RV; the heavily trabeculated RV and dense tricuspid subvalvular apparatus can predispose patients to suction events. Implantation in the RA may be more favourable.68

In another series, 11 patients with biventricular failure underwent implantation of an LVAD as well as an HVAD in the RA.68 Still, pump thrombosis occurred in four patients, who required treatment with bivalirudin and cannula-directed tissue plasminogen activator.68 One reason for the elevated incidence of device thrombosis may be related to the need to maintain lower pump speeds to avoid generating excessive flow through the low-resistance vascular bed. Of note, in August 2021, because of increasing incidences of adverse neurological events and pump thrombosis, the FDA issued a class I recall for the HeartWare HVAD system.74

More recently, the HeartMate 3 (Abbott) has been used in a biventricular configuration.75 Given the low incidence of thrombosis recorded with the HeartMate 3, it is an appealing device to use in the highly trabeculated RV.76 In the first experience described, which involved 14 patients, eight patients underwent simultaneous RVAD and LVAD implant while the others underwent RVAD implantation following LVAD implant.75 The RVAD was implanted into the RA in 12 patients. Nine patients were still alive at the time of publication.

McGiffin et al. also describe 12 patients who underwent similar biventricular HeartMate 3 implantation as a bridge to cardiac transplantation.77 The right-sided pump was implanted in the right atrium. Three cases of right VAD thrombosis were reported: one was managed medically, one required surgical pump exchange and one was intraoperatively treated with clot retrieval. By 18 months after implantation, five patients had undergone cardiac transplantation, five were alive on biventricular support, one had died and one had the VAD explanted for myocardial recovery.

Future Directions

PERkutane KATheterpumptechnologie RV (PERKAT RV, NovaPump) is a newer device, designed with the aim of creating a minimally invasive mechanical right heart support device that modifies the pulsatile support technology of IABP therapy. It is meant for rapid percutaneous deployment requiring an 18 Fr sheath. The device is composed of a nitinol chamber covered by foil that contains inflow valves.

The chamber is implanted in the inferior vena cava and the outlet tube attached to its distal part has its tip in the pulmonary trunk, bypassing the right heart.78 An IABP balloon is then placed inside so that, during balloon inflation, blood flows into the pulmonary arteries. The device has been shown to achieve flow rates of 3.5 litres per min in vitro. In a sheep model of acute pulmonary embolism, the device increased cardiac output by 59%.79 However, future studies are needed to determine its efficacy and outcomes in humans.

Gaps in Knowledge

While different mechanical support platforms hold great potential for improving patient outcomes related to RV failure, it is important to acknowledge the absence of randomised trial data to guide the use of this technology. Furthermore, the difference between outcomes with the Impella RP device in a study population and the post-market experience highlights the importance of careful patient selection and the need for more high-quality data to support the use of these technologies.

While the focus of durable RVAD investigation has been on patients with RV failure following durable LVAD implantation, interest is growing in the use of isolated durable RVAD use for patients with other disease processes that typically affect the RV and spare the LV. HVAD use has been reported in isolated RV failure secondary to WHO group 1 pulmonary hypertension when lung transplantation is not feasible.80

In addition, the optimal use of durable RVADs for patients with durable LVADs remains unclear. The optimal timing of percutaneous RVAD insertion for patients at high risk of RV failure following LVAD insertion is unknown, with some centres initiating RVAD support before implanting an LVAD. Lastly, the relative benefit of one short-term RV MCS device over another is also unclear and may vary according to the underlying aetiology of RV failure.

Conclusion

RV failure portends a poor prognosis across a spectrum of cardiovascular disease states including RV infarction and post-cardiotomy shock as well as following LVAD implantation, among other situations.

The ability of the RV to recover from a variety of pathophysiologic insults makes it an attractive target for short-term circulatory support devices. Recent advances in percutaneous therapies for short-term RV circulatory support offer promise to improve upon these historically poor outcomes. However, the long-term use of RV MCS devices remains limited, and outcomes are variable. Early recognition of RV failure and implementation of RV MCS devices are important steps to optimising outcomes for this patient population.

References

  1. Sultan I, Kilic A, Kilic A. Short-term circulatory and right ventricle support in cardiogenic shock: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Tandem Heart, CentriMag, and Impella. Heart Fail Clin 2018;14:579–83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Bhama JK, Kormos RL, Toyoda Y, et al. Clinical experience using the Levitronix CentriMag system for temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009;28:971–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Aissaoui N, Morshuis M, Schoenbrodt M, et al. Temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support for the management of right ventricular failure in critically ill patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013;146:186–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Alkhawam H, Rafeedheen R, Abo-Salem E. Right ventricular failure following placement of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device. Heart Lung 2019;48:111–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Grignola JC, Domingo E. Acute right ventricular dysfunction in intensive care unit. BioMed Res Int 2017;2017:8217105.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Zornoff LAM, Skali H, Pfeffer MA, et al. Right ventricular dysfunction and risk of heart failure and mortality after myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1450–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Haddad F, Hunt SA, Rosenthal DN, Murphy DJ. Right ventricular function in cardiovascular disease, part I: anatomy, physiology, aging, and functional assessment of the right ventricle. Circulation 2008;117:1436–48.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Haddad F, Doyle R, Murphy DJ, Hunt SA. Right ventricular function in cardiovascular disease, part II: pathophysiology, clinical importance, and management of right ventricular failure. Circulation 2008;117:1717–31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Konstam MA, Kiernan MS, Bernstein D, et al. Evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2018;137:e578–622.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Bhama JK, Bansal U, Winger DG, et al. Clinical experience with temporary right ventricular mechanical circulatory support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;156:1885–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Harjola V-P, Mebazaa A, Čelutkienė J, et al. Contemporary management of acute right ventricular failure: a statement from the Heart Failure Association and the Working Group on Pulmonary Circulation and Right Ventricular Function of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Heart Fail 2016;18:226–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Amsallem M, Mercier O, Kobayashi Y, et al. Forgotten no more: a focused update on the right ventricle in cardiovascular disease. JACC Heart Fail 2018;6:891–903.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Chopski SG, Murad NM, Fox CS, et al. Mechanical circulatory support of the right ventricle for adult and pediatric patients with heart failure. ASAIO J 2019;65:106–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Kapur NK, Esposito ML, Bader Y, et al. Mechanical circulatory support devices for acute right ventricular failure. Circulation 2017;136:314–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Goldstein JA, Kern MJ. Percutaneous mechanical support for the failing right heart. Cardiol Clin 2012;30:303–10.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Yoshioka D, Takayama H, Garan RA, et al. Contemporary outcome of unplanned right ventricular assist device for severe right heart failure after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device insertion. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2017;24:828–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Raina A, Patarroyo-Aponte M. Prevention and treatment of right ventricular failure during left ventricular assist device therapy. Crit Care Clin 2018;34:439–52.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Morine KJ, Kiernan MS, Pham DT, et al. Pulmonary artery pulsatility index is associated with right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device surgery. J Card Fail 2016;22:110–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Bellavia D, Iacovoni A, Scardulla C, et al. Prediction of right ventricular failure after ventricular assist device implant: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Heart Fail 2017;19:926–46.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Lampert BC, Teuteberg JJ. Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1123–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Vonk Noordegraaf A, Westerhof BE, Westerhof N. The relationship between the right ventricle and its load in pulmonary hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:236–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Dell’Italia LJ, Lembo NJ, Starling MR, et al. Hemodynamically important right ventricular infarction: follow-up evaluation of right ventricular systolic function at rest and during exercise with radionuclide ventriculography and respiratory gas exchange. Circulation 1987;75:996–1003.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Doll JA, Ohman EM, Patel MR, et al. A team-based approach to patients in cardiogenic shock. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:424–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Garan AR, Kirtane A, Takayama H. Redesigning care for patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: the ‘shock team’. JAMA Surg 2016;151:684–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Tehrani B, Truesdell A, Singh R, et al. Implementation of a cardiogenic shock team and clinical outcomes (INOVA-SHOCK Registry): observational and retrospective study. JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7:e160.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Krishnamoorthy A, DeVore AD, Sun J-L, et al. The impact of a failing right heart in patients supported by intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2017;6:709–18.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Vanden Eynden F, Mets G, De Somer F, et al. Is there a place for intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation support in acute right ventricular failure by pressure-overload? Int J Cardiol 2015;197:227–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Anderson MB, Goldstein J, Milano C, et al. Benefits of a novel percutaneous ventricular assist device for right heart failure: the prospective RECOVER RIGHT study of the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015;34:1549–560.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Anderson M, Morris DL, Tang D, et al. Outcomes of patients with right ventricular failure requiring short-term hemodynamic support with the Impella RP device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018;37:1448–58.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Food and Drug Administration. Increased Rate of Mortality in Patients Receiving Abiomed Impella RP System - Letter to Health Care Providers. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/update-increased-rate-mortality-patients-receiving-abiomed-impella-rp-system-letter-health-care (accessed 27 December 2021).
  31. Elder M, Blank N, Kaki A, et al. Mechanical circulatory support for acute right ventricular failure in the setting of pulmonary embolism. J Intervent Cardiol 2018;31:518–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Shokr M, Rashed A, Mostafa A, et al. Impella RP support and catheter-directed thrombolysis to treat right ventricular failure caused by pulmonary embolism in 2 patients. Tex Heart Inst J 2018;45:182–5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Abiomed. FDA issues emergency use authorization for Impella RP as therapy for COVID-19 patients with right heart failure. Press release. 1 June 2020. https://evtoday.com/news/fda-issues-emergency-use-authorization-for-impella-rp-as-therapy-for-covid-19-patients-with-right-heart-failure (accessed 27 December 2021).
  34. Pieri M, Pappalardo F. Impella RP in the treatment of right ventricular failure: what we know and where we go. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2018;32:2339–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Rajdev S, Benza R, Misra V. Use of Tandem Heart as a temporary hemodynamic support option for severe pulmonary artery hypertension complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Invasive Cardiol 2007;19:e226–9.
    PubMed
  36. Takagaki M, Wurzer C, Wade R, et al. Successful conversion of TandemHeart left ventricular assist device to right ventricular assist device after implantation of a HeartMate XVE. Ann Thorac Surg 2008;86:1677–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Hira RS, Thamwiwat A, Kar B. TandemHeart placement for cardiogenic shock in acute severe mitral regurgitation and right ventricular failure. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014;83:319–22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Bajona P, Salizzoni S, Brann SH, et al. Prolonged use of right ventricular assist device for refractory graft failure following orthotopic heart transplantation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;139:e53–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Giesler GM, Gomez JS, Letsou G, et al. Initial report of percutaneous right ventricular assist for right ventricular shock secondary to right ventricular infarction. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2006;68:263–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Kapur NK, Paruchuri V, Jagannathan A, et al. Mechanical circulatory support for right ventricular failure. JACC Heart Fail 2013;1:127–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Aggarwal V, Einhorn BN, Cohen HA. Current status of percutaneous right ventricular assist devices: First-in-man use of a novel dual lumen cannula. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2016;88:390–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Ravichandran AK, Baran DA, Stelling K, et al. Outcomes with the Tandem Protek Duo dual-lumen percutaneous right ventricular assist device. ASAIO J 2018;64:570–2.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Schmack B, Weymann A, Popov A-F, et al. Concurrent left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation and percutaneous temporary RVAD support via CardiacAssist Protek-Duo TandemHeart to preempt right heart failure. Med Sci 2016;22:53–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Coromilas EJ, Takeda K, Ando M, et al. Comparison of percutaneous and surgical right ventricular assist device support after durable left ventricular assist device insertion. J Card Fail 2019;25:105–13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. De Robertis F, Rogers P, Amrani M, et al. Bridge to decision using the Levitronix CentriMag short-term ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2008;27:474–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Borisenko O, Wylie G, Payne J, et al. Thoratec CentriMag for temporary treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock or severe cardiopulmonary insufficiency: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of observational studies. ASAIO J 2014;60:487–97.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. De Robertis F, Birks EJ, Rogers P, et al. Clinical performance with the Levitronix Centrimag short-term ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2006;25:181–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Haneya A, Philipp A, Puehler T, et al. Temporary percutaneous right ventricular support using a centrifugal pump in patients with postoperative acute refractory right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2012;41:219–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Pappalardo F, Scandroglio AM, Latib A. Full percutaneous biventricular support with two Impella pumps: the Bi-Pella approach. ESC Heart Fail 2018;5:368–71.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Tschöpe C, Van Linthout S, Klein O, et al. Mechanical unloading by fulminant myocarditis: LV-IMPELLA, ECMELLA, BI-PELLA, and PROPELLA concepts. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2019;12:116–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Aghili N, Bader Y, Vest AR, et al. Biventricular circulatory support using 2 axial flow catheters for cardiogenic shock without the need for surgical vascular access. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003636.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Kapur NK, Jumean M, Ghuloom A, et al. First successful use of 2 axial flow catheters for percutaneous biventricular circulatory support as a bridge to a durable left ventricular assist device. Circ Heart Fail 2015;8:1006–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Guglin M, Zucker MJ, Bazan VM, et al. Venoarterial ECMO for adults: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:698–716.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Rao P, Khalpey Z, Smith R, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. Circ Heart Fail 2018;11:e004905.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Biancari F, Perrotti A, Dalén M, et al. Meta-analysis of the outcome after postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2018;32:1175–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Bakhtiary F, Keller H, Dogan S, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: clinical experiences in 45 adult patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:382–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Habal MV, Truby L, Ando M, et al. VA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock in the contemporary era of heart transplantation: which patients should be urgently transplanted? Clin Transplant 2018;32:e13356.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Lorusso R, Centofanti P, Gelsomino S, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute fulminant myocarditis in adult patients: a 5-year multi-institutional experience. Ann Thorac Surg 2016;101:919–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Rihal CS, Naidu SS, Givertz MM, et al. 2015 SCAI/ACC/HFSA/STS clinical expert consensus statement on the use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices in cardiovascular care. (Endorsed by the American Heart Assocation, the Cardiological Society of India, and Sociedad Latino Americana de Cardiologia Intervencion; affirmation of value by the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology-Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d’intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;65:e7–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Kai M, Tang GHL, Malekan R, et al. Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for right heart failure complicating left ventricular assist device use. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014;147:e31–3.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Jung JS, Son HS, Lee SH, et al. Successful extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for right heart failure after heart transplantation – 2 case reports and literature review. Transplant Proc 2013;45:3147–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Schrage B, Burkhoff D, Rübsamen N, et al. Unloading of the left ventricle during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy in cardiogenic shock. JACC Heart Fail 2018;6:1035–43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Takeda K, Garan AR, Ando M, et al. Minimally invasive CentriMag ventricular assist device support integrated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock patients: a comparison with conventional CentriMag biventricular support configuration. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017;52:1055–61.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Akanni OJ, Takeda K, Truby LK, et al. EC-VAD: combined use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and percutaneous microaxial pump left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J 2019;65:219–26.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Cheng R, Hachamovitch R, Kittleson M, et al. Complications of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for treatment of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest: a meta-analysis of 1,866 adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2014;97:610–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Sy E, Sklar MC, Lequier L, et al. Anticoagulation practices and the prevalence of major bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2017;39:87–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Takayama H, Landes E, Truby L, et al. Feasibility of smaller arterial cannulas in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:1428–33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Tran HA, Pollema TL, Silva Enciso J, et al. Durable biventricular support using right atrial placement of the HeartWare HVAD. ASAIO J 2018;64:323–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Takeda K, Naka Y, Yang JA, et al. Outcome of unplanned right ventricular assist device support for severe right heart failure after implantable left ventricular assist device insertion. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014;33:141–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Strueber M, Meyer AL, Malehsa D, Haverich A. Successful use of the HeartWare HVAD rotary blood pump for biventricular support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;140:936–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Shehab S, Macdonald PS, Keogh AM, et al. Long-term biventricular HeartWare ventricular assist device support – case series of right atrial and right ventricular implantation outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016;35:466–73.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Krabatsch T, Potapov E, Stepanenko A, et al. Biventricular circulatory support with two miniaturized implantable assist devices. Circulation 2011;124:S179–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Kirklin JK, Pagani FD, Kormos RL, et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017;36:1080–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. US Food and Drug Admiminstration. Stop new implants of the Medtronic HVAD system – letter to health care providers. 3 June 2021, updated 6 August 2021. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/stop-new-implants-medtronic-hvad-system-letter-health-care-providers (accessed 27 December 2021).
  75. Lavee J, Mulzer J, Krabatsch T, et al. An international multicenter experience of biventricular support with HeartMate 3 ventricular assist systems. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018;37:1399–402.
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Uriel N, et al. Two-year outcomes with a magnetically levitated cardiac pump in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1386–95.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. McGiffin D, Kure C, McLean J, et al. The results of a single-center experience with HeartMate 3 in a biventricular configuration. J Heart Lung Transplant 2021;40:193–200.
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. Kretzschmar D, Lauten A, Schubert H, et al. PERKAT RV: first in vivo data of a novel right heart assist device. EuroIntervention 2018;13:e2116–21.
    Crossref | PubMed
  79. Kretzschmar D, Schulze PC, Ferrari MW. Concept, evaluation, and future perspectives of PERKAT® RV-A novel right ventricular assist device. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 2019;12:150–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  80. Rosenzweig EB, Chicotka S, Bacchetta M. Right ventricular assist device use in ventricular failure due to pulmonary arterial hypertension: lessons learned. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016;35:1272–4.
    Crossref | PubMed