Minireviews Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Cardiol. Jul 26, 2020; 12(7): 334-341
Published online Jul 26, 2020. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v12.i7.334
Comprehensive review of hemolysis in ventricular assist devices
Christos A Papanastasiou, Theodoros D Karamitsos, 1st Department of Cardiology, AHEPA Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 54621, Greece
Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis, 3rd Department of Medicine, Sotiria Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens 11527, Greece
Christina A Theochari, Department of Internal Medicine, Messinia General Hospital, Kalamata 24100, Greece
Damianos G Kokkinidis, Department of Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, United States
Leonidas Palaiodimos, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, United States
ORCID number: Christos A Papanastasiou (0000-0001-5581-2362); Konstantinos G Kyriakoulis (0000-0001-8986-2704); Christina A Theochari (0000-0002-7865-6187); Damianos G Kokkinidis (0000-0002-1381-4754); Theodoros D Karamitsos (0000-0002-4658-5273); Leonidas Palaiodimos (0000-0003-4682-5991).
Author contributions: All authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: There is no conflict of interest associated with the contributions of the senior author or other coauthors to this manuscript.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Leonidas Palaiodimos, MD, MSc, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10461, United States. palaiodimosmd@gmail.com
Received: February 4, 2020
Peer-review started: February 4, 2020
First decision: March 24, 2020
Revised: May 2, 2020
Accepted: May 27, 2020
Article in press: May 27, 2020
Published online: July 26, 2020
Processing time: 170 Days and 21.3 Hours

Abstract

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have played an important role in altering the natural history of end-stage heart failure. Low-grade hemolysis has been traditionally described in patients with VADs, indicating effective device functionality. However, clinically significant hemolysis could be crucial in terms of prognosis, calling for prompt therapeutic actions. The absence of solid and widely approved diagnostic criteria for clinically significant hemolysis, render the utilization of hemolysis laboratory markers challenging. Hemolysis incidence varies (5%-18%) depending on definition and among different VAD generations, being slightly higher in continuous-flow devices than in pulsatile devices. Increased shear stress of red blood cells and underlying device thrombosis appear to be the main pathogenetic pathways. No certain algorithm is available for the management of hemolysis in patients with VADs, while close clinical and laboratory monitoring remains the cornerstone of management. Imaging examinations such as echocardiography ramp test or computed tomography scan could play a role in revealing the underlying cause. Treatment should be strictly personalized, including either pharmacological (antithrombotic treatment) or surgical interventions.

Key Words: Ventricular assist device, Hemolysis, Thrombosis

Core tip: Ventricular assist devices are essential in end-stage heart failure management. Severe hemolysis can be a significant complication, leading to increased mortality and worse outcomes. The incidence of hemolysis varies (5%-18%) depending on different definitions of hemolysis and among different ventricular assist device generations. The main pathogenetic mechanisms include increased red blood cell shear stress or underlying device thrombosis. A personalized approach is crucial in the absence of certain algorithms for the management of this complication. Close clinical and laboratory monitoring in combination with imaging examinations could play a role in revealing the underlying cause. Treatment includes pharmacological (antithrombotic treatment) or surgical interventions.



INTRODUCTION

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) have evolved into an essential therapeutic option for patients with end-stage heart failure as they are used as a bridge to transplant, a bridge to recovery or as a destination therapy[1-3]. Despite their substantial benefits in this vulnerable group of patients, VADs have been associated with a great variety of adverse events, including but not limited to infection, bleeding and pump thrombosis[4]. Recently, hemolysis has gained attention in the field of mechanical circulatory support as a side-effect that is associated with important clinical and prognostic information[5].

Although a low level of hemolysis exists by default in patients supported with VADs and may indicate that the device works well, clinically significant hemolysis constitutes a major complication associated with deleterious consequences and an eminent need for aggressive management[5]. Unfortunately, the absence of unanimous criteria on the definition of clinically significant hemolysis remains its Achilles heel, blurring important epidemiological aspects of this clinical entity. In this review we discuss critical issues with regard to hemolysis from the perspective of long-term (durable) VADs, covering the entire clinical spectrum of this expected but potentially life-threatening complication.

DEFINITION

The laboratory markers lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), plasma free hemoglobin (pfHgb), haptoglobin, and bilirubin are traditionally used to detect hemolysis. However, most studies adopted different sets of “preferred” diagnostic criteria for hemolysis detection with dissimilar parameters and varying cut-off values for each biomarker. This inconsistency in the definition is also reflected in the contents of the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS). The most recent INTERMACS definition allows the distinction of major from minor hemolysis by the presence of clinical signs, while cut-off values for LDH (2.5 times the upper limit of the normal range) and pfHgb (20 mg/dL) have been employed to indicate a hemolytic event[6].

INCIDENCE

By moving from the first to newer-generation devices, a significant reduction in the rates of most adverse events has been observed[7]. The reported hemolysis rates were slightly higher in continuous-flow devices than in pulsatile devices[7]. Even among newer-generation devices, there are considerable differences in hemolysis incidence associated mainly with mechanical factors (Table 1)[8].

Table 1 Basic characteristics of different types of left ventricular assist devices.
Type of LVADExamplePump designCharacteristicsHemolysis
First-generationHeartMate IPulsatile flowLarger blood contacting surfaces, multiple moving partsIncrease
Second-generationHeartMate IIContinuous – axial flowSmaller sizeIncrease
Third-generationHeartWareContinuous – centrifugal flowNoncontact bearing (magnetic levitation)Increase

Frictional heat generated at the contacting parts of most axial-flow VADs and shear stress created by the device impeller result in increased rates of hemolysis, ranging from less than 5% up to 18% for the landmark device Heartmate II (HMII), depending on the definition of hemolysis used across the studies[9,10]. Pagani et al[9] defining hemolysis as two consecutive pfHgb values greater than 40 mg/dL and a LDH value greater than 1000 mg/dL, reported an incidence of 4% over a 6-mo period of support[9]. The study by Slaughter et al[11], which evaluated HMII as destination therapy reported a similar hemolysis incidence[11]. Another study by Ravichandran et al[10] used completely different parameters to define hemolysis (Hgb < 10 g/dL, haptoglobin < 8 g/dL and LDH > 250 IU/L) and demonstrated a four to five-fold higher incidence (18%)[10]. Along these lines, a recent study from Japan showed that hemolysis was the most frequent adverse event among HeartMate II receivers, of whom 14% developed a major hemolytic event[12].

The employment of non-contact bearings, which allows for rotation without wear, has significantly reduced the hemolysis rates in the third generation VADs[13]. Slaughter et al[14] used laboratory markers (pfHgb > 40 mg/dL) in combination with pertinent clinical signs to determine hemolysis rates for the centrifugal, continuous-flow HeartWare device and reported lower hemolysis incidence (1.2% over a 36-mo period)[14]. More impressive were the results of two small-sized studies for the Heartmate 3 LVAS, where no cases of hemolysis were observed[15,16].

ETIOLOGY

Several mechanisms have been proposed to account for hemolysis related to mechanical circulatory support[8,17]. The commonly held hypothesis is that red blood cells undergo increased shear stress as they pass through the mechanical components of the device and become fragmented, a process ultimately resulting in hemolysis. This hypothesis was also supported by Yasuda et al[18] who performed in vitro tests in order to define the factors that contribute to hemolysis during blood flow through artificial organs. According to their results, shear stress and flow acceleration were the major factors responsible for the lysis of erythrocytes[18]. These parameters are strongly associated with the hyperdynamic circulation, which can be caused by a variety of reasons, such as dehydration, aortic regurgitation, and increased pump speed. Of note, the restoration of blood flow into the ascending aorta post LVAD implantation, may affect the function of the aortic valve due to an increase in afterload creating a local circuit where blood leaks backward into the pump[19]. As a consequence, red blood cells are exposed to high mechanical shear forces caused by the blood-pump interface and hemolysis becomes an unavoidable complication.

Additionally, the presence of hemolysis may be the reason behind pump thrombus, or malpositioning of the LVAD inflow cannula[17]. Pump thrombosis and hemolysis are two complications linked in a bidirectional way. Virchow’s triad, modified and applied to the context of the VAD microenvironment (bioreactive surfaces, activated platelets, abnormal flow patterns) remains the key to understanding the fundamental principles of thrombogenesis in mechanical circulatory support[20]. Βioreactive materials used in VADs set the stage for thrombus formation via two pathways: (1) By activating the intrinsic cascade of coagulation, when plasma proteins interact with the non-hemocompatible surface of a circulatory pump, and (2) By promoting platelet adhesion to the pump surface through adhesion proteins found on the metallic surface (e.g., fibrinogen, von Willebrand factor)[21]. When platelets adhere to the surface, the secretion of their granule-stored mediators (e.g., adenosine diphosphate) further fuels the self-perpetuating processes of platelet aggregation and activation. The third component of Virchow’s triad plays a central role in platelet activation, as well. Shear forces have been implicated in triggering von Willebrand – platelet glycoprotein Ib interaction, leading to the formation of loose aggregates and activation of integrin aIIbβ3, hence allowing fibrinogen to bind to platelet membranes[22]. Beyond these adhesion signaling pathways, Slepian et al[23] introduced mechanically-related aspects of shear-mediated platelet activation, according to which platelet porogenisity could be increased by membrane damage and shear-sensitive channels, allowing the influx of activating mediators[23].

The smaller size of newer VADs predispose them to thrombosis of the entire pump, facilitating the process of hemolysis through erythrocyte membrane injury[24]. Consequently, byproducts released by lysed erythrocytes exert pro-thrombotic actions through various pathways. Cell-free hemoglobin scavenges circulating nitric oxide (NO) and erythrocyte arginase depletes L-arginine, the substrate for NO synthesis, limiting the ability of endothelial NO synthase to produce NO[25]. Thus, NO bioavailability is reduced and its inhibitory actions on platelet adhesion and activation are abolished[26]. Moreover, heme catabolism via heme oxygenase-1 releases carbon monoxide and iron, two end-products with hypercoagulable and hypofibrinolytic features[27]. Of note, iron overload has been associated with activation of blood coagulation and formation of fibrin-like dense matted deposits, which are more resistant to degradation, compared to thrombin-induced fibrin clots[28]. Finally, a recent study demonstrated a direct relationship between hemolysis and VAD thrombosis, indicating that free hemoglobin inhibited ADAMTS-13, thus protecting active von Willebrand factor from degradation[30].

Despite significant breakthroughs in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of hemolysis and thrombosis in the setting of mechanical circulatory support, it is still unknown whether hemolysis or thrombosis is the first step on the cascade. It seems that these two inextricably related complications establish a new hematologic status, which is characterized by hemolytic and clotting diathesis, resulting in device dysfunction, heart failure or even death.

RISK FACTORS

Although the complications of mechanical circulatory support are well-described, there are few data on the risk factors that predispose patients to hemolysis. Three studies explored the differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without hemolysis as a complication due to VAD[5,10,30]. Katz et al[5] retrieved data from the INTERMACS registry and demonstrated that patients who received a continuous-flow LVAD and suffered a hemolytic event were more likely to be younger and female[5]. In another study, younger age, smoking and female sex were also found to have a significant association with the development of hemolysis in patients who were supported with the HMII device[10]. Contrary to these findings, Cowger et al[30] did not detect significant differences in any of the aforementioned risk factors[30]. From a biomarker standpoint, higher LDH at the time of VAD implantation and lower INR were reported to be associated with higher rates of hemolysis[10,30].

MANAGEMENT

Although hemolysis is a potentially life-threatening complication of mechanical circulatory support, there is no consensus to date regarding the management of this clinical entity. Hemodynamic stability, surgical candidacy and the underlying cause of hemolysis should be carefully considered before initiating any treatment. The first step in the evaluation of an acute hemolytic event or worsening of pre-existing anemia should be the close monitoring of hemolysis-related biomarkers[24]. Apart from hemoglobin/hematocrit and total/indirect bilirubin, emphasis should be given to serial changes in LDH[24]. A non-significant and stable increase in LDH levels may be associated with a hyperdynamic circulation, caused by dehydration or increased pump speed. If a marked elevation in LDH levels is detected, further diagnostic studies may be necessary to specify the underlying cause of hemolysis. An echocardiography ramp test, in which left ventricular dimensions are recorded at increasing pump speeds, is suggested to detect device malfunction[31]. Although pump thrombosis is the predominant reason for defective unloading of the left ventricular, in terms of increased pump speeds, graft malpositioning is an alternative possibility. In this case, a computed tomography scan can be used to reveal potential mechanical impairment, which should be corrected surgically.

Antithrombotic treatment should be immediately intensified, irrespective of the cause of hemolysis. Specific medication treatment strategies for device thrombosis include initiation of unfractionated heparin, either alone or in combination with antiplatelet agents or direct thrombin inhibitors, and thrombolytics[32]. Although the optimal medical approach is not well established, a recent meta-analysis sought to shed light on this topic by evaluating the efficacy and complications associated with the aforementioned agents[33]. No significant difference in thrombus resolution was found between thrombolytic and non-thrombolytic treatment, while the risk of major bleeding was higher in the thrombolysis group. Surgical therapy with device exchange has shown higher success rates in resolving pump thrombus, compared to medical treatment but is limited by its invasive nature and decreased long-term survival[34]. As a result, indications are limited to patients with hemodynamic instability, persistence of hemolysis or progressive heart failure despite the initial medical treatment[35,36].

PROGNOSIS

Although limited, observational data exist regarding the prognostic role of hemolysis after VAD implantation, it seems that the development of a serious hemolytic event is associated with poor outcomes (Table 2). Katz et al[5] showed that survival was significantly attenuated in patients who suffered a hemolytic episode, compared to those who did not. Similarly, in another study, 1-year survival was markedly decreased in the hemolysis group as compared to the non-hemolysis group of patients (38.9% vs 89.3%, P < 0.001)[10]. Finally, Cowger et al[30] demonstrated that the hazard of death was four times greater in hemolytic patients than that observed in non-hemolytic patients (HR: 4.3, 95%CI: 2.1-8.9)[30]. However, it should be highlighted that in these studies, only crude analyses were performed. Interestingly, in a recent study by Xia et al[37], hemolysis or pump thrombosis were found to be significant predictors of poor long-term survival, even after adjusting for potential confounders[37]. Whether hemolysis is associated with adverse outcomes in patients supported by VADs should be further investigated.

Table 2 Baseline characteristics, demographics and results of studies investigating hemolysis in left ventricular assist devices.
Ref.Study designDeviceNo of patientsDefinition of hemolysisOutcomeResulta
Xia et al[37], 2019Retrospective (data obtained from the INTERMACS registry 2012-2013)Continuous flow LVADs1116NAShort-term survival (< 3 yr)aOR: 3.57 (1.84-6.93)
Katz et al[5], 2015Retrospective (data obtained from the INTERMACS registry 2006-2012)Continuous flow LVADs4850PfHg > 40 mg/dL and clinical signs of hemolysisMortality (mean of follow-up: 11.1 mo)OR: 1.19 (1.146-2.52)
Ravichandran et al[10], 2014RetrospectiveHeartMate II100Hgb < 10 g/dL, haptoglobin < 8 g/dL and LDH > 250 U/L1-yr mortalityOR: 11.3 (3.56-35.93)
Cowger et al[30], 2014RetrospectiveHeartMate II182SfHg > 40 mg/dL and clinical signs of hemolysis1-yr mortalityHR: 4.3 (2.1-8.9)
CONCLUSION

Hemolysis appears to be a relatively common complication of mechanical circulatory support that may serve as an early indicator of adverse events. Given the low specificity of the hemolysis-related biomarkers, patients supported with a VAD should be closely monitored for both clinical and laboratory signs of hemolysis. Future research studies should attempt to approach this interesting topic in a more standardized way, adopting a reliable and consistent hemolysis definition in order to elucidate further the risk factors and prognostic significance of this complication. The destruction of red blood cells may be just the tip of the iceberg of a disrupted hematologic profile in the setting of mechanical circulatory support.

Footnotes

Manuscript source: Invited manuscript

Specialty type: Cardiac and cardiovascular systems

Country/Territory of origin: Greece

Peer-review report’s scientific quality classification

Grade A (Excellent): 0

Grade B (Very good): B

Grade C (Good): C

Grade D (Fair): D

Grade E (Poor): 0

P-Reviewer: Barik R, Kharlamov AN, Vermeersch P S-Editor: Zhang L L-Editor: Webster JR E-Editor: Zhang YL

References
1.  Frazier OH, Rose EA, McCarthy P, Burton NA, Tector A, Levin H, Kayne HL, Poirier VL, Dasse KA. Improved mortality and rehabilitation of transplant candidates treated with a long-term implantable left ventricular assist system. Ann Surg. 1995;222:327-336; discussion 336-338.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 259]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 265]  [Article Influence: 9.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Boyle AJ, Aaronson KD, Conte JV, Naka Y, Mancini D, Delgado RM, MacGillivray TE, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH; HeartMate II Clinical Investigators. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:885-896.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 1394]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1344]  [Article Influence: 79.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW, Dembitsky W, Long JW, Ascheim DD, Tierney AR, Levitan RG, Watson JT, Meier P, Ronan NS, Shapiro PA, Lazar RM, Miller LW, Gupta L, Frazier OH, Desvigne-Nickens P, Oz MC, Poirier VL; Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) Study Group. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435-1443.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3136]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2872]  [Article Influence: 124.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Yuan N, Arnaoutakis GJ, George TJ, Allen JG, Ju DG, Schaffer JM, Russell SD, Shah AS, Conte JV. The spectrum of complications following left ventricular assist device placement. J Card Surg. 2012;27:630-638.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 74]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 81]  [Article Influence: 7.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Katz JN, Jensen BC, Chang PP, Myers SL, Pagani FD, Kirklin JK. A multicenter analysis of clinical hemolysis in patients supported with durable, long-term left ventricular assist device therapy. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:701-709.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 46]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 41]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Valle-Muñoz A, Estornell-Erill J, Soriano-Navarro CJ, Nadal-Barange M, Martinez-Alzamora N, Pomar-Domingo F, Corbí-Pascual M, Payá-Serrano R, Ridocci-Soriano F. Late gadolinium enhancement-cardiovascular magnetic resonance identifies coronary artery disease as the aetiology of left ventricular dysfunction in acute new-onset congestive heart failure. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2009;10:968-974.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 34]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 37]  [Article Influence: 2.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Kormos RL, Stevenson LW, Pagani FD, Miller MA, Baldwin JT, Young JB. Fifth INTERMACS annual report: risk factor analysis from more than 6,000 mechanical circulatory support patients. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:141-156.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 572]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 556]  [Article Influence: 50.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Fraser KH, Zhang T, Taskin ME, Griffith BP, Wu ZJ. A quantitative comparison of mechanical blood damage parameters in rotary ventricular assist devices: shear stress, exposure time and hemolysis index. J Biomech Eng. 2012;134:081002.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 258]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 214]  [Article Influence: 17.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Pagani FD, Miller LW, Russell SD, Aaronson KD, John R, Boyle AJ, Conte JV, Bogaev RC, MacGillivray TE, Naka Y, Mancini D, Massey HT, Chen L, Klodell CT, Aranda JM, Moazami N, Ewald GA, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH; HeartMate II Investigators. Extended mechanical circulatory support with a continuous-flow rotary left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:312-321.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 716]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 705]  [Article Influence: 47.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Ravichandran AK, Parker J, Novak E, Joseph SM, Schilling JD, Ewald GA, Silvestry S. Hemolysis in left ventricular assist device: a retrospective analysis of outcomes. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:44-50.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 74]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75]  [Article Influence: 6.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Slaughter MS, Rogers JG, Milano CA, Russell SD, Conte JV, Feldman D, Sun B, Tatooles AJ, Delgado RM, Long JW, Wozniak TC, Ghumman W, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH; HeartMate II Investigators. Advanced heart failure treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2241-2251.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2404]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2299]  [Article Influence: 153.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Seguchi O, Kuroda K, Kumai Y, Nakajima S, Yanase M, Wada K, Matsumoto Y, Fukushima S, Fujita T, Kobayashi J, Fukushima N. Clinical Outcomes of Patients With the HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Single-center Experience From Japan. Transplant Proc. 2018;50:2726-2732.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Rodriguez LE, Suarez EE, Loebe M, Bruckner BA. Ventricular assist devices (VAD) therapy: new technology, new hope? Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2013;9:32-37.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 41]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43]  [Article Influence: 3.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Slaughter MS, Pagani FD, McGee EC, Birks EJ, Cotts WG, Gregoric I, Howard Frazier O, Icenogle T, Najjar SS, Boyce SW, Acker MA, John R, Hathaway DR, Najarian KB, Aaronson KD; HeartWare Bridge to Transplant ADVANCE Trial Investigators. HeartWare ventricular assist system for bridge to transplant: combined results of the bridge to transplant and continued access protocol trial. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:675-683.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 281]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 299]  [Article Influence: 27.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Krabatsch T, Netuka I, Schmitto JD, Zimpfer D, Garbade J, Rao V, Morshuis M, Beyersdorf F, Marasco S, Damme L, Pya Y. Heartmate 3 fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device for the treatment of advanced heart failure -1 year results from the Ce mark trial. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;12:23.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 78]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 86]  [Article Influence: 12.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Nowacka A, Hullin R, Tozzi P, Barras N, Regamey J, Yerly P, Rosner L, Marcucci C, Rusca M, Liaudet L, Kirsch M. Short-term single-centre experience with the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device for advanced heart failure. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 5]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Akin S, Soliman OI, Constantinescu AA, Akca F, Birim O, van Domburg RT, Manintveld O, Caliskan K. Haemolysis as a first sign of thromboembolic event and acute pump thrombosis in patients with the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device HeartMate II. Neth Heart J. 2016;24:134-142.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 22]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20]  [Article Influence: 2.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Yasuda T, Shimokasa K, Funakubo A, Higami T, Kawamura T, Fukui Y. An investigation of blood flow behavior and hemolysis in artificial organs. ASAIO J. 2000;46:527-531.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 26]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26]  [Article Influence: 1.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Gopalan RS, Arabia FA, Noel P, Chandrasekaran K. Hemolysis from aortic regurgitation mimicking pump thrombosis in a patient with a HeartMate II left ventricular assist device: a case report. ASAIO J. 2012;58:278-280.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 12]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  de Biasi AR, Manning KB, Salemi A. Science for surgeons: understanding pump thrombogenesis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:667-673.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 29]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 2.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Koliopoulou A, McKellar SH, Rondina M, Selzman CH. Bleeding and thrombosis in chronic ventricular assist device therapy: focus on platelets. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2016;31:299-307.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 25]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26]  [Article Influence: 3.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Chow TW, Hellums JD, Moake JL, Kroll MH. Shear stress-induced von Willebrand factor binding to platelet glycoprotein Ib initiates calcium influx associated with aggregation. Blood. 1992;80:113-120.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Slepian MJ, Sheriff J, Hutchinson M, Tran P, Bajaj N, Garcia JGN, Scott Saavedra S, Bluestein D. Shear-mediated platelet activation in the free flow: Perspectives on the emerging spectrum of cell mechanobiological mechanisms mediating cardiovascular implant thrombosis. J Biomech. 2017;50:20-25.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 42]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 50]  [Article Influence: 6.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Tchantchaleishvili V, Sagebin F, Ross RE, Hallinan W, Schwarz KQ, Massey HT. Evaluation and treatment of pump thrombosis and hemolysis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3:490-495.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Ataga KI. Hypercoagulability and thrombotic complications in hemolytic anemias. Haematologica. 2009;94:1481-1484.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 104]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 124]  [Article Influence: 8.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  Tziros C, Freedman JE. The many antithrombotic actions of nitric oxide. Curr Drug Targets. 2006;7:1243-1251.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 25]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 27]  [Article Influence: 1.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Nielsen VG, Pretorius E. Iron and carbon monoxide enhance coagulation and attenuate fibrinolysis by different mechanisms. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis. 2014;25:695-702.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 41]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36]  [Article Influence: 4.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Pretorius E, Lipinski B. Differences in morphology of fibrin clots induced with thrombin and ferric ions and its pathophysiological consequences. Heart Lung Circ. 2013;22:447-449.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 21]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 23]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  Bartoli CR, Zhang D, Kang J, Hennessy-Strahs S, Restle D, Howard J, Redline G, Bermudez C, Atluri P, Acker MA. Clinical and In Vitro Evidence That Subclinical Hemolysis Contributes to LVAD Thrombosis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:807-814.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 28]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 4.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Cowger JA, Romano MA, Shah P, Shah N, Mehta V, Haft JW, Aaronson KD, Pagani FD. Hemolysis: a harbinger of adverse outcome after left ventricular assist device implant. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:35-43.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 125]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 128]  [Article Influence: 11.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Uriel N, Morrison KA, Garan AR, Kato TS, Yuzefpolskaya M, Latif F, Restaino SW, Mancini DM, Flannery M, Takayama H, John R, Colombo PC, Naka Y, Jorde UP. Development of a novel echocardiography ramp test for speed optimization and diagnosis of device thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: the Columbia ramp study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1764-1775.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 269]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 262]  [Article Influence: 21.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  Hohner E, Crow J, Moranville MP. Medication management for left ventricular assist device thrombosis. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015;72:1104-1113.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 16]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Dang G, Epperla N, Muppidi V, Sahr N, Pan A, Simpson P, Baumann Kreuziger L. Medical Management of Pump-Related Thrombosis in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. ASAIO J. 2017;63:373-385.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 38]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 42]  [Article Influence: 7.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
34.  Najjar SS, Slaughter MS, Pagani FD, Starling RC, McGee EC, Eckman P, Tatooles AJ, Moazami N, Kormos RL, Hathaway DR, Najarian KB, Bhat G, Aaronson KD, Boyce SW; HVAD Bridge to Transplant ADVANCE Trial Investigators. An analysis of pump thrombus events in patients in the HeartWare ADVANCE bridge to transplant and continued access protocol trial. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014;33:23-34.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 349]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 351]  [Article Influence: 31.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Bistola V, Parissis JT, Lekakis J, Filippatos G. Non-obstructive left ventricular assist device outflow thrombus: What is the appropriate management? Int J Cardiol. 2016;214:33-34.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 3]  [Article Influence: 0.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Goldstein DJ, John R, Salerno C, Silvestry S, Moazami N, Horstmanshof D, Adamson R, Boyle A, Zucker M, Rogers J, Russell S, Long J, Pagani F, Jorde U. Algorithm for the diagnosis and management of suspected pump thrombus. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:667-670.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 176]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 181]  [Article Influence: 16.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
37.  Xia Y, Forest S, Friedmann P, Chou LC, Patel S, Jorde U, Goldstein D. Factors Associated With Prolonged Survival in Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019;107:519-526.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 10]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10]  [Article Influence: 1.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]