Literature DB >> 18544385

Improving outcomes with long-term "destination" therapy using left ventricular assist devices.

James W Long1, Aaron H Healy, Brad Y Rasmusson, Cris G Cowley, Karl E Nelson, Abdallah G Kfoury, Stephen E Clayson, Bruce B Reid, Stephanie A Moore, Douglas U Blank, Dale G Renlund.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Destination therapy experience using long-term left ventricular assist devices was analyzed relative to the benchmark Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure trial to evaluate the potential for improving outcomes with this groundbreaking therapy for advanced heart failure.
METHODS: The largest single-center experience with destination therapy in the United States (Utah Artificial Heart Program, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, UT) was retrospectively analyzed. All destination therapy recipients (n = 23) presented with chronic, advanced heart failure, meeting indications for destination therapy adopted from the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure trial. All received HeartMate left ventricular assist devices (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, Calif), with 87% receiving an improved XVE model. Advanced practice guidelines were implemented using a multidisciplinary approach. Survivals (Kaplan-Meier, log-rank analyses) and adverse events (Poisson regression) were compared with those of the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure left ventricular assist device group (n = 68).
RESULTS: Survival in the destination therapy group was significantly increased (P = .007), with an overall reduction in mortality of 66%. The 2-year survival was 77% for destination therapy compared with 29% for the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure left ventricular assist device group (P < .0001). The 1-year survival was 77% for destination therapy compared with the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure left ventricular assist device rate of 52% (P = .036). Adverse events decreased by 38% (3.90 per patient-year in the destination therapy group compared with the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure left ventricular assist device rate of 6.32). Factors related to severity of illness met Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure-like criteria for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides evidence that long-term destination therapy can be improved well beyond the pioneering experience of the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure trial. With continued evolution of devices, management, and patient selection, outcomes approaching those of heart transplantation may be possible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18544385     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2006.09.124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  24 in total

1.  Religion and the Catholic church's view on (heart) transplantation: a recent statement of Pope Benedict XVI and its practical impact.

Authors:  Ernst R Schwarz; Salvatore Rosanio
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2011-09

Review 2.  Palliative care and end-of-life issues in patients treated with left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy.

Authors:  Keith M Swetz; Abigale L Ottenberg; Monica R Freeman; Paul S Mueller
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2011-09

Review 3.  Ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of ventricular assist devices in supporting patients with end-stage organ dysfunction.

Authors:  Courtenay R Bruce; Baruch Brody; Mary A Majumder
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2013 Jan-Mar

4.  Palliative Medicine and Preparedness Planning for Patients Receiving Left Ventricular Assist Device as Destination Therapy-Challenges to Measuring Impact and Change in Institutional Culture.

Authors:  Brandon P Verdoorn; Angela J Luckhardt; Sara E Wordingham; Shannon M Dunlay; Keith M Swetz
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 3.612

Review 5.  An insight into short- and long-term mechanical circulatory support systems.

Authors:  Markus Ferrari; Peter Kruzliak; Kyriakos Spiliopoulos
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 6.  Mechanical circulatory support: devices, outcomes and complications.

Authors:  Carmelo A Milano; Alan A Simeone
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.214

7.  Experience of a patient with an extracorporeal ventricular assist system who participated in a sleepover program.

Authors:  Shigeyoshi Gon; Yoshihito Suematsu; Sei Morizumi; Tsuyoshi Shimizu
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2011-05-28       Impact factor: 1.731

Review 8.  Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplant or for destination therapy.

Authors:  Satya S Shreenivas; J Eduardo Rame; Mariell Jessup
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2010-12

9.  Incidence and patterns of adverse event onset during the first 60 days after ventricular assist device implantation.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Genovese; Mary Amanda Dew; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Marc A Simon; Joy Kay; Michael P Siegenthaler; Jay K Bhama; Christian A Bermudez; Kathleen L Lockard; Steve Winowich; Robert L Kormos
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Study of device malfunctions in patients with implantable ventricular assist devices living at home.

Authors:  Koichi Kashiwa; Takashi Nishimura; Hitoshi Kubo; Hisayoshi Tamai; Atsushi Baba; Minoru Ono; Shinichi Takamoto; Shunei Kyo
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2010-08-26       Impact factor: 1.731

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.