Aims Adjuvant heart failure (HF) drug therapy in patients undergoing chronic mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is often used in conjunction with a continuous‐flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD), but its potential impact is not well defined. The objective of the present study was to examine the effects of conventional HF drug therapy on myocardial structure and function, peripheral organ function and the incidence of adverse events in the setting of MCS. Methods and results Patients with chronic HF requiring LVAD support were prospectively enrolled. Paired myocardial tissue samples were obtained prior to LVAD implantation and at transplantation for histopathology. The Meds group comprised patients treated with neurohormonal blocking therapy (concurrent beta‐blocker, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, and aldosterone antagonist), and the No Meds group comprised patients on none of these. Both the Meds (n = 37) and No Meds (n = 44) groups experienced significant improvements in cardiac structure and function over the 6 months following LVAD implantation. The degree of improvement was greater in the Meds group, including after adjustment for baseline differences. There were no differences between the two groups in arrhythmias, end‐organ injury, or neurological events. In patients with high baseline pre‐LVAD myocardial fibrosis, treatment with HF drug therapy was associated with a reduction in fibrosis. Conclusions Clinical and histopathological evidence showed that adjuvant HF drug therapy was associated with additional favourable effects on the structure and function of the unloaded myocardium that extended beyond the beneficial effects attributed to LVAD‐induced unloading alone. Adjuvant HF drug therapy did not influence the incidence of major post‐LVAD adverse events during the follow‐up period.

The Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has transformed individual lives and societal framework on a global scale, and in no other sector is this more evident than healthcare. Herein, we aim to describe the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions on heart failure (HF) admissions. In this retrospective cohort study, we obtained administrative data for patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF (identified by ICD-10 code) with discharge dates ranging from January 2019 to November 2020. The study is comprised of 2 distinct sub-cohorts: HF admissions during the COVID-19 pandemic (case) period from March 2020 to October 2020 and corresponding control period during the previous year (March 2019 to December 2019). Primary outcome analysis involved comparison of total and daily HF admissions and secondary outcomes included hospital Length of Stay (LOS) and 30-day readmissions. The number of total HF admissions and average daily admissions were significantly lower in 2020 compared to 2019 (774 vs. 864; p < 0.001 and 3.17 vs. 3.53 days; p < 0.001), respectively. Average length of stay was significantly higher between March and October 2020 relative to the same months in 2019 (6.05 vs. 5.25 days; p < 0.001). Thirty-day readmission rates were also significantly higher in March-October 2020 compared to the same months in 2019 (20.6% vs. 19.1%; p < 0.001). During the pandemic, both readmission rates and length of stay for HF-related admissions were significantly impacted. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted HF-related admissions as well as associated LOS and 30-day readmissions. High-risk patients should be identified carefully, and timely and appropriate treatment should be provided.

It is unclear whether pulmonary hemodynamics improvement with left ventricle unloading with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is sustained long term after heart transplant (HT). We sought to assess the effects on pulmonary vascular hemodynamics during continuous-flow (CF-LVAD) and pulsatile flow (PF-LVAD) support up to 5 years after HT. Invasive hemodynamics were evaluated before LVAD, before HT, and at 3 months, 1, and 3-5 years posttransplant. Thirty-eight patients were included in the study and divided into two groups according to the type of LVAD support. The two groups were well matched in age and gender. Mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAPm) and systolic PAP (PAPs) improved significantly in the PF-LVAD group (40 ± 10.6 to 19.8 ± 4.4 mm Hg and 62.7 ± 14.9 to 31.8 ± 5.9 mm Hg, respectively) and in the CF-LVAD group (37.4 ± 11.6 to 22.4 ± 7.7 mm Hg and 53.7 ± 18.0 to 34.6 ± 11.8 mm Hg, respectively). Reductions in PAPm and PAPs were more pronounced in PF-LVAD group than in CF-LVAD group (p = 0.005 and p = 0.03, respectively). After HT, the improvement in PAPm and PAPs was sustained after 3-5 years in patients who received PF-LVAD (22.6 ± 6.5 and 32.2 ± 9.2 mm Hg, respectively) and in patients who received CF-LVAD (22.2 ± 8.4 and 33.8 ± 9.6 mm Hg, respectively). In conclusion, long-term LVAD support resulted in significant improvement in PAPm and PAPs regardless of the pump generation. The improvement in hemodynamics observed during LVAD support was sustained 3-5 years posttransplant.