BACKGROUND: Long-term implantable continuous axial-flow pumps are increasingly used in bridging heart failure patients to heart transplant. Compared to pulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), they offer smaller dimensions, less surgical trauma and less thromboembolisms. However concerns still remain about the long-term effects of continuous-flow on patients' outcome. The aim of this study was to review our mechanical bridge to transplant experience to compare pre- and post-transplant outcomes between pulsatile and continuous-flow LVAD recipients. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with a continuous-flow device (Micromed DeBakey, Houston, TX or InCor Berlin Heart, Berlin, Germany--group A) were compared with 41 patients supported with a pulsatile device (Novacor, WorldHeart, Oakland, CA--group B). RESULTS: Mean age (48.6+/-12.4 vs 47.2+/-12.5) and LVAD duration (119.3+/-115.4 vs 128.3+/-198.3) were similar in the two groups. Group A recipients were smaller compared to group B (mean body surface area=1.77+/-0.18 vs 1.93+/-0.16; p<0.001). Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy was not significantly greater between the two groups (78% vs 58.3%; p=0.085). Successful bridging to transplantation was similar in group A compared to group B (52.8% vs 63.4%; p=non significant). On-VAD mortality was similar between the two groups (A vs B=33.3% vs 36.6%; p=non significant). Thirty-day mortality after HTx in group A was 10.5% compared to 7.7% in group B (p=non significant). First year post-transplant incidence of treated rejections (36.8% vs 46%; p=non significant) as the mean number of rejection/patient (0.38+/-0.5 vs 0.53+/-0.83; p=non significant) were similar in group A compared to group B. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, when compared to pulsatile LVAD, continuous-flow pumps are similarly effective in transplant rate and post-transplant outcome.
BACKGROUND: Long-term implantable continuous axial-flow pumps are increasingly used in bridging heart failurepatients to heart transplant. Compared to pulsatile left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), they offer smaller dimensions, less surgical trauma and less thromboembolisms. However concerns still remain about the long-term effects of continuous-flow on patients' outcome. The aim of this study was to review our mechanical bridge to transplant experience to compare pre- and post-transplant outcomes between pulsatile and continuous-flow LVAD recipients. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with a continuous-flow device (Micromed DeBakey, Houston, TX or InCor Berlin Heart, Berlin, Germany--group A) were compared with 41 patients supported with a pulsatile device (Novacor, WorldHeart, Oakland, CA--group B). RESULTS: Mean age (48.6+/-12.4 vs 47.2+/-12.5) and LVAD duration (119.3+/-115.4 vs 128.3+/-198.3) were similar in the two groups. Group A recipients were smaller compared to group B (mean body surface area=1.77+/-0.18 vs 1.93+/-0.16; p<0.001). Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy was not significantly greater between the two groups (78% vs 58.3%; p=0.085). Successful bridging to transplantation was similar in group A compared to group B (52.8% vs 63.4%; p=non significant). On-VAD mortality was similar between the two groups (A vs B=33.3% vs 36.6%; p=non significant). Thirty-day mortality after HTx in group A was 10.5% compared to 7.7% in group B (p=non significant). First year post-transplant incidence of treated rejections (36.8% vs 46%; p=non significant) as the mean number of rejection/patient (0.38+/-0.5 vs 0.53+/-0.83; p=non significant) were similar in group A compared to group B. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, when compared to pulsatile LVAD, continuous-flow pumps are similarly effective in transplant rate and post-transplant outcome.
Authors: Salim E Olia; Peter D Wearden; Timothy M Maul; Venkat Shankarraman; Ergin Kocyildirim; Shaun T Snyder; Patrick M Callahan; Marina V Kameneva; William R Wagner; Harvey S Borovetz; James F Antaki Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Kiyotaka Fukamachi; Jamshid H Karimov; Gengo Sunagawa; David J Horvath; Nicole Byram; Barry D Kuban; Raymond Dessoffy; Shiva Sale; Leonard A R Golding; Nader Moazami Journal: J Artif Organs Date: 2017-04-08 Impact factor: 1.731
Authors: Jeremiah G Allen; Eric S Weiss; Justin M Schaffer; Nishant D Patel; Susan L Ullrich; Stuart D Russell; Ashish S Shah; John V Conte Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2009-10-17 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Aaron H Healy; Stephen H McKellar; Stavros G Drakos; Antigoni Koliopoulou; Josef Stehlik; Craig H Selzman Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Sjoukje I Lok; Nicolaas de Jonge; Joyce van Kuik; Ankie J P van Geffen; Manon M H Huibers; Petra van der Weide; Erica Siera; Bjorn Winkens; Pieter A Doevendans; Roel A de Weger; Paula A da Costa Martins Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240