Utility of Cardiac Computed Tomography in Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Devices

  • Mahwash Kassi
  • Bashar Hannawi
  • Sardar Muhammad Alamzaib
  • Juan C. Ramirez Giraldo
  • Su Min ChangEmail author
Cardiac Computed Tomography (M Cheezum and B Chow, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Cardiac Computed Tomography


Purpose of Review

The number of left ventricular assist device implants has increased significantly in the last decade. Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) optimization, trouble-shooting complications, and surgical planning require a multi-modality imaging approach. Echocardiography remains the imaging modality of choice, particularly for physiological evaluation but accurate anatomical evaluation of the entirety of the LVAD is often challenging if not impossible. Cardiac computed tomography (CCT) offers additional information that is valuable in taking care of these complex patients. The purpose of this review is to understand the nuances of LVAD imaging and areas where CCT can aid LVAD evaluation and management.

Recent Findings

CCT has a well-established role in trouble-shooting complications particularly inflow and outflow cannula-related anatomic complications from suction and kinking. Even though the literature is scarce, there is evolving data to suggest that adverse inflow and outflow cannula positions may result in unfavorable outcomes. There is more interest in novel mechanisms of device implantation and planning for which data set from CCT is ideal. Functional evaluation of the right ventricle with CCT is becoming more sophisticated and maybe particularly useful in this patient population. Development in CCT technology has helped minimize safety concerns and improved image quality with reduction in LVAD-related artifacts.


CCT is an important adjunct modality to echocardiography for patients with LVAD. Information obtained from CCT may help our understanding of LVAD and in turn help reduce and managed LVAD-related complications.


Cardiac computed tomography Left ventricular assist device Surgical planning LVAD complications Safety Artifact reduction 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Chang is recipient of a Houston Methodist –Siemens Research Collaborative Grant.

Dr. Ramirez Giraldo is an employee of Siemens HealthCare.

All other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material (658 kb)
Video 1 (MOV 658 kb) (1.9 mb)
Video 2 (MOV 1909 kb)


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major Importance

  1. 1.
    Pinney SP, Anyanwu AC, Lala A, Teuteberg JJ, Uriel N, Mehra MR. Left ventricular assist devices for lifelong support. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2845–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kassi M, Estep JD. Role of multimodality imaging in patients with left ventricular assist device. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2016;31:510–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carr CM, Jacob J, Park SJ, Karon BL, Williamson EE, Araoz PA. CT of left ventricular assist devices. Radiographics. 2010;30:429–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Horton SC, Khodaverdian R, Chatelain P, McIntosh ML, Horne BD, Muhlestein JB, et al. Left ventricular assist device malfunction: an approach to diagnosis by echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1435–40.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Estep JD, Stainback RF, Little SH, Torre G, Zoghbi WA. The role of echocardiography and other imaging modalities in patients with left ventricular assist devices. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010;3:1049–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mak GS, Truong QA. Cardiac CT: imaging of and through cardiac devices. Curr Cardiovasc Imaging Rep. 2012;5:328–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chrysant GS, Phancao AA, Horstmanshof DA, Jones S, Long JW. Clinical utility of imaging left ventricular assist devices with 320 row multidetector computed tomography. ASAIO J 2018, 1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, Birks E, Lietz K, Moore SA, et al. The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013;32:157–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raman SV, Sahu A, Merchant AZ, Louis LB 4th, Firstenberg MS, Sun B. Noninvasive assessment of left ventricular assist devices with cardiovascular computed tomography and impact on management. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2010;29:79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vivo RP, Kassi M, Estep JD, Bhimaraj A, Trachtenberg BH, Orrego CM, et al. MDCT assessment of mechanical circulatory support device complications. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:100–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Uriel N, Cleveland JCJ, Yuzefpolskaya M, Salerno C, et al. Two-year outcomes with a magnetically levitated cardiac pump in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1386–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scheffel H, Stolzmann P, Wilhelm MJ, Lachat M, Desbiolles L, Leschka S, et al. Conventional radiography and computed tomography of cardiac assist devices. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:2097–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Acharya D, Aryal S, Loyaga-Rendon R, Pamboukian SV, Tallaj J, Kirklin JK, Holman WL, Singh S. The use of computed tomography in preoperative planning for Heartware left ventricular assist device placement. ASAIO J. 2018. Novel use of CCT for pre-operative planning of HVAD. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Noecker AM, Cingoz F, Ootaki Y, Liu J, Kuzmiak S, Kopcak MW, et al. The Cleveland Clinic PediPump: anatomic modeling and virtual fitting studies in a lamb model. ASAIO J. 2007;53:716–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anselmi A, Collin S, Haigron P, Verhoye JP, Flecher E. Device-specific evaluation of intraventricular left ventricular assist device position by quantitative coaxiality analysis. J Surg Res. 2017;213:110–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Anselmi A, Collin S, Haigron P, Verhoye JP, Flecher E. Virtual implantation of a novel LVAD: toward computer-assisted surgery for heart failure. J Surg Res. 2016;205:204–7 Novel use of CCT for virtual implantation. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Teigen LM, John R, Kuchnia AJ, Nagel EM, Earthman CP, Kealhofer J, et al. Preoperative pectoralis muscle quantity and attenuation by computed tomography are novel and powerful predictors of mortality after left ventricular assist device implantation. Circ Heart Fail. 2017;10:e004069.
  18. 18.
    Mohamed I, Lau CT, Bolen MA, El-Sherief AH, Azok JT, Karimov JH, et al. Building a bridge to save a failing ventricle: radiologic evaluation of short- and long-term cardiac assist devices. Radiographics. 2015;35:327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Sorensen EN, Kon ZN, Feller ED, Pham SM, Griffith BP. Quantitative assessment of inflow malposition in two continuous-flow left ventricular-assist devices. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; . Important study delineating the affects of inflow cannula position and relation with outcomes. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sacks J, Gonzalez-Stawinski GV, Hall S, Lima B, MacHannaford J, Dockery W, et al. Utility of cardiac computed tomography for inflow cannula patency assessment and prediction of clinical outcome in patients with the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015;21:590–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bolen MA, Popovic ZB, Gonzalez-Stawinski G, Schoenhagen P. Left ventricular assist device malposition interrogated by 4-D cine computed tomography. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2011;5:186–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    El Sabbagh A, Al-Hijji M, Gulati R, Rihal CS, Pollak PM, Behfar A. Percutaneous stenting of a left ventricular assist device outflow kink. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:e229–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rogers JG, Managing VAD. Complications: our growth industry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2769–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scandroglio AM, Kaufmann F, Pieri M, Kretzschmar A, Muller M, Pergantis P, et al. Diagnosis and treatment algorithm for blood flow obstructions in patients with left ventricular assist device. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:2758–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tran BC, Nijjar PS. Role of contrast CT for the diagnosis and the prognosis of suspected LVAD thrombosis. J Card Surg. 2017;32:162–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Utsunomiya D, Awai K, Tamura Y, Nishiharu T, Urata J, Sakamoto T, et al. 16-MDCT aortography with a low-dose contrast material protocol. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:374–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Salem R, Remy-Jardin M, Delhaye D, Khalil C, Teisseire A, Delannoy-Deken V, et al. Integrated cardio-thoracic imaging with ECG-gated 64-slice multidetector-row CT: initial findings in 133 patients. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1973–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Garcia-Alvarez A, Fernandez-Friera L, Lau JF, Sawit ST, Mirelis JG, Castillo JG, et al. Evaluation of right ventricular function and post-operative findings using cardiac computed tomography in patients with left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:896–903.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Trachtenberg BH, Cordero-Reyes A, Elias B, Loebe M. A review of infections in patients with left ventricular assist devices: prevention, diagnosis and management. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2015;11:28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Donahey EE, Polly DM, Vega JD, Lyon M, Butler J, Nguyen D, et al. Multidrug-resistant organism infections in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Tex Heart Inst J. 2015;42:522–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dell'Aquila AM, Avramovic N, Mastrobuoni S, Motekallemi A, Wisniewski K, Scherer M, Sindermann JR, Wenning C. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for improving diagnosis of infection in patients on CF-LVAD: longing for more insightsEur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; .Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kanapinn P, Burchert W, Korperich H, Korfer J. (18)F-FDG PET/CT-imaging of left ventricular assist device infection: a retrospective quantitative intrapatient analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 2018.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Levy DT, Minamoto GY, Da Silva R, Puius YA, Peck N, Goldstein D, et al. Role of gallium SPECT-CT in the diagnosis of left ventricular assist device infections. ASAIO J. 2015;61:e5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Maeda T, Tanoue Y, Nakashima A, Tominaga R. Atypical presentation of an apical pseudoaneurysm in a patient on prolonged left ventricular mechanical support. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10:350–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Grinstein J, Kruse E, Sayer G, Fedson S, Kim GH, Sarswat N, et al. Novel echocardiographic parameters of aortic insufficiency in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices and clinical outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016;35:976–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phan K, Haswell JM, Xu J, Assem Y, Mick SL, Kapadia SR, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter interventions for aortic insufficiency in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ASAIO J. 2017;63:117–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Iizuka K, Nishinaka T, Ichihara Y, Miyamoto T, Yamazaki K. Outflow graft anastomosis site design could be correlated to aortic valve regurgitation under left ventricular assist device support. J Artif Organs 2017.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khoshbin E, Schueler S. Pre-transplant ventricular assist device explant. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;7:160–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Capoccia M. Mechanical circulatory support for advanced heart failure: are we about to witness a new “gold standard”? J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2016;3. Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kalisz K, Buethe J, Saboo SS, Abbara S, Halliburton S, Rajiah P. Artifacts at cardiac CT: physics and solutions. Radiographics. 2016;36:2064–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Habets J, Mali WP, Budde RP. Multidetector CT angiography in evaluation of prosthetic heart valve dysfunction. Radiographics. 2012;32:1893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Symons R, Choi Y, Cork TE, Ahlman MA, Mallek M, Bluemke DA, et al. Optimized energy of spectral coronary CT angiography for coronary plaque detection and quantification. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12:108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    •• Secchi F, De Cecco CN, Spearman JV, Silverman JR, Ebersberger U, Sardanelli F, et al. Monoenergetic extrapolation of cardiac dual energy CT for artifact reduction. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:413–8. Artifact reduction using dual-energy CT based reconstruction of virtual monoenergetic images CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    •• Meyer E, Raupach R, Lell M, Schmidt B, Kachelriess M. Frequency split metal artifact reduction (FSMAR) in computed tomography. Med Phys. 2012;39:1904–16 Important articles regarding artifact reduction for better quality imaging; which is particularly relevant in patients with LVAS. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abbara S, Arbab-Zadeh A, Callister TQ, Desai MY, Mamuya W, Thomson L, et al. SCCT guidelines for performance of coronary computed tomographic angiography: a report of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Guidelines Committee. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2009;3:190–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahwash Kassi
    • 1
  • Bashar Hannawi
    • 2
  • Sardar Muhammad Alamzaib
    • 3
  • Juan C. Ramirez Giraldo
    • 4
  • Su Min Chang
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular MedicineMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Cardiovascular Imaging Section, Department of CardiologyHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart & Vascular CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Graduate Medical EducationUniversity of Central Florida College of MedicineOrlandoUSA
  4. 4.Computed Tomography, Siemens HealthineersMalvernUSA

Personalised recommendations