Literature DB >> 11265874

Device and patient management in a bridge-to-transplant setting.

A El-Banayosy1, R Körfer, L Arusoglu, L Kizner, M Morshuis, H Milting, G Tenderich, O Fey, K Minami.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of sophisticated devices have been developed for mechanical circulatory support in patients bridged to cardiac transplantation. Based on 13 years' experience, we have developed specific protocols for patient selection and management for different devices.
METHODS: The principal systems applied in the bridge-to-transplant cohort are the Thoratec ventricular assist device (n = 144, mean duration of support 53 +/- 57 days), the Novacor left ventricular assist system (LVAS) (n = 85, mean duration of support 154 +/- 15 days), and the HeartMate LVAS (n = 54, mean duration of support 143 +/- 142 days). The Thoratec device is used for biventricular assistance or if the duration of support is expected to be less than 6 months. For long-term support, either the Novacor or HeartMate LVAS are preferred.
RESULTS: Despite careful postoperative patient management, this group of patients is prone to a variety of complications. Bleeding occurred in 22% to 35%, right heart failure in 15% to 26%, neurologic disorders in 7% to 28%, infection in 7% to 30%, and liver failure in 11% to 20% of patients. Complications varied with the device applied and the patient's preoperative condition. A total of 73 patients were discharged from hospital for a mean period of 184 days; this cumulative experience amounted to 37.5 patient-years.
CONCLUSIONS: The Novacor and the HeartMate systems offer the additional possibility of discharging patients during support if they fulfill certain criteria. The main reasons for rehospitalization were thromboembolic and infectious complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11265874     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)02618-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  7 in total

Review 1.  Past, present, and future regulatory aspects of ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Sonna M Patel-Raman; Eric A Chen
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Porcine encephalomyocarditis virus persists in pig myocardium and infects human myocardial cells.

Authors:  L A Brewer; H C Lwamba; M P Murtaugh; A C Palmenberg; C Brown; M K Njenga
Journal:  J Virol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 5.103

Review 3.  [Infection control measures and surveillance of patients with ventricular assist devices].

Authors:  F Mattner; I F Chaberny; L Mattner; P Gastmeier; R Tessmann; M Strüber
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 4.  Towards non-thrombogenic performance of blood recirculating devices.

Authors:  D Bluestein; K B Chandran; K B Manning
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 3.934

5.  Left ventricular assist devices: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2004-03-01

6.  Device thrombogenicity emulation: a novel methodology for optimizing the thromboresistance of cardiovascular devices.

Authors:  Danny Bluestein; Gaurav Girdhar; Shmuel Einav; Marvin J Slepian
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 2.712

7.  Mechanical cardiac support system for patients with postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock: analysis of risk factors for survival.

Authors:  Ken-ichi Imasaka; Munetaka Masuda; Tomohisa Oishi; Ichiro Shimizu; Toshiro Iwai; Takayoshi Kajihara; Yukihiro Tomita; Shigeki Morita; Kiminori Shiraishi; Hisataka Yasui
Journal:  Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2004-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.