Depends. Like most of medicine and life, you have to balance relative risk vs absolute risk. The absolute risk of an lvad is high (stroke, infection, death) but if the heart is really failing and a donor cannot be found, the relative risk of not doing an lvad may be higher than putting one in. It all depends on the overall clinical circumstances.
The disease itself. Needs "a bridge" is risky enough. Procedures that help the disease have risk but certainly justify risk. It us not the risk itself that's an issue. Rather, it's the risk/benefit ratio. "the only thing to fear is fear itself". My hope and prayer for you is guidance to reach the best decision.
Not yet. No, now it's just a bridge to transplant, but someday maybe it will.
Maybe. But not in the foreseeable future. Currently it's used as a bridge to transplantation. It will need to undergo significant technological improvement before it's a substitute for transplantation and we hope that stem cells or genomic therapy may beat it to the punch.
LVAD. LVAD can be bridge and in some patients can be destination therapy and used as a long term therapy. I would call any of the close major medical center who have a LVAD program and seek their input.