Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T07:04:25.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical implications of major haemolysis in children supported by a pulsatile ventricular assist device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2025

Emma R. Powers Open the ORCID record for Emma R. Powers [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael A. Brock Open the ORCID record for Michael A. Brock [Opens in a new window] ,
Jeffrey P. Jacobs Open the ORCID record for Jeffrey P. Jacobs [Opens in a new window] ,
Sukumar Suguna Narasimhulu Open the ORCID record for Sukumar Suguna Narasimhulu [Opens in a new window] ,
Shivaani R. Mahabir ,
Giles J. Peek Open the ORCID record for Giles J. Peek [Opens in a new window] ,
Dalia Lopez-Colon Open the ORCID record for Dalia Lopez-Colon [Opens in a new window] ,
Mark S. Bleiweis Open the ORCID record for Mark S. Bleiweis [Opens in a new window]  and
Joseph Philip Open the ORCID record for Joseph Philip [Opens in a new window]
Emma R. Powers
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Michael A. Brock
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Jeffrey P. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Sukumar Suguna Narasimhulu
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Shivaani R. Mahabir
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Giles J. Peek
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Dalia Lopez-Colon
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Mark S. Bleiweis
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Joseph Philip*
Affiliation:
Congenital Heart Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
*
Corresponding author: J. Philip; Email: subijo9@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Haemolysis is developing prominence in the setting of supporting increasingly complex children with heart failure with a ventricular assist device. The goal of this study is to better characterise haemolysis and its implications in children supported with pulsatile ventricular assist devices.

Methods:

This is a single-centre retrospective review of 44 children who were supported by Berlin Heart EXCOR between January 2006 and June 2020. Patients were divided into major haemolysers and non-major haemolysers. Major haemolysers were defined as patients with lactate dehydrogenase > 500U/L (2.5x the upper limits of normal) with either total bilirubin > 2mg/dL (with predominantly indirect hyperbilirubinemia) or anaemia out of proportion to the clinical scenario more than three days following implantation of the ventricular assist device(s). Patient demographics, ventricular assist device factors, and outcomes, including end-organ function and mortality, were compared between major haemolysers and non-major haemolysers.

Main results:

Forty-four patients supported by the Berlin EXCOR were included in the analytic cohort of the study: 27 major haemolysers and 17 non-major haemolysers. Major haemolysis was more common in those supported with single-ventricle ventricular assist device (i.e., VAD in the context of functionally univentricular anatomy) compared to those with biventricular hearts, p = 0.01. There were no patients with an isolated left ventricular assist device or isolated right ventricular assist device in our analytic cohort of 44 patients. Of the 19 patients with single-ventricle ventricular assist device, 84% (16/19) were major haemolysers. Of the 25 patients with a biventricular assist device, 44% (11/25) were major haemolysers. Major haemolysers and non-major haemolysers had a body surface area of 0.28 and 0.40, respectively (p = 0.01). Overall, survival to discharge from the hospital was 66% (n = 29/44). Survival to discharge from the hospital was 52% (14/27) in major haemolysers versus 88% (15/17) in non-major haemolysers, p = 0.02. Only 3 of the 27 with major haemolysis had severe haemolysis, that is, lactate dehydrogenase > 2000 and bilirubin above 10. Non-major haemolysers had a better improvement in creatinine clearance during ventricular assist device support, p < 0.0001. (During the same era of this study, 22 patients who were supported with Berlin Heart were excluded from the analytic cohort because they did not have any recorded measurement of lactate dehydrogenase. Seventeen of these 22 patients had no clinical evidence of haemolysis. Survival to discharge from the hospital in this excluded cohort was 86% [19/22].)

Conclusions:

Major haemolysis in patients with pulsatile ventricular assist device is more likely with single-ventricle ventricular assist device support and smaller body surface area.

Keywords

Haemolysismechanical circulationCHDheart failuretransplantpediatricinfantneonate

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Power, A, Sweat, KR, Dykes, JC, et al. : waitlist mortality for children listed for heart transplant in the United States: how are we doing? J Heart Lung Transplant 2021; 40: S37–S38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghbeis, MB, Vander Pluym, CJ. Thiagarajan RR: hemostatic challenges in pediatric critical care medicine—Hemostatic balance in VAD. Front Pediatr 2021; 9: 625632.10.3389/fped.2021.625632CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hetzer, R, Alexi-Meskishvili, V, Weng, Y, et al. Mechanical cardiac support in the young with the berlin heart EXCOR pulsatile ventricular assist device: 15 years’ experience. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2006; 9: 99–108.10.1053/j.pcsu.2006.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, J, Powers, E, Machado, D, et al. Pulsatile ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant for the early high-risk single-ventricle physiology. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 162: 405–413.e4.10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.09.071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burki, S, Adachi, I. Pediatric ventricular assist devices: current challenges and future prospects. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2017; 13: 177–185.10.2147/VHRM.S82379CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohde, S, Antonides, CFJ, Dalinghaus, M, et al. Clinical outcomes of paediatric patients supported by the Berlin heart EXCOR: a systematic review. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg Off J Eur Assoc Cardio-Thorac Surg 2019; 56: 830–839.10.1093/ejcts/ezz092CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowger, JA, Romano, MA, Shah, P, et al. Hemolysis: a harbinger of adverse outcome after left ventricular assist device implant. J Heart Lung Transplant 2014; 33: 35–43.10.1016/j.healun.2013.08.021CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, JS, Wood, CT, Luc, JGY, et al. Clinical implications of LDH isoenzymes in hemolysis and continuous-flow left ventricular assist device-induced thrombosis. Artif Organs 2020; 44: 231–238.10.1111/aor.13565CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heilmann, C, Geisen, U, Benk, C, et al. Haemolysis in patients with ventricular assist devices: major differences between systems. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2009; 36: 580–584.10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravichandran, AK, Parker, J, Novak, E, et al. Hemolysis in left ventricular assist device: a retrospective analysis of outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant Off Publ Int Soc Heart Transplant 2014; 33: 44–50.10.1016/j.healun.2013.08.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleiweis, MS, Stukov, Y, Philip, J, et al. Analysis of 82 children supported with pulsatile paracorporeal ventricular assist device: comparison of patients with biventricular versus univentricular circulation. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022; S1043-0679: 00120–00124.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, DN, Almond, CS, Jaquiss, RD, et al. Adverse events in children implanted with ventricular assist devices in the United States: Data from the Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (PediMACS). J Heart Lung Transplant 2016; 35: 569–577. Erratum in: J Heart Lung Transplant. 2017 Jan;36(1):116.10.1016/j.healun.2016.03.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, GJ, Muñoz, A, Schneider, MF, et al. New equations to estimate GFR in children with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN 2009; 20: 629–637.10.1681/ASN.2008030287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, JN, Jensen, BC, Chang, PP, et al. A multicenter analysis of clinical hemolysis in patients supported with durable, long-term left ventricular assist device therapy. J Heart Lung Transplant Off Publ Int Soc Heart Transplant 2015; 34: 701–709.10.1016/j.healun.2014.10.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Nattes, T, Litzler, P-Y, Gay, A, et al. Hemolysis induced by left ventricular assist device is associated with proximal tubulopathy. PloS One 2020; 15: e0242931.10.1371/journal.pone.0242931CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanderPluym, CJ, Cantor, RS, Machado, D, et al. Utilization and outcomes of children treated with direct thrombin inhibitors on paracorporeal ventricular assist device support. ASAIO J Am Soc Artif Intern Organs 2020; 66: 939–945.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Powers et al. supplementary material

Powers et al. supplementary material
Download Powers et al. supplementary material(File)
File 14.6 KB