Literature DB >> 18721570

Right heart dysfunction after left ventricular assist device implantation: a comparison of the pulsatile HeartMate I and axial-flow HeartMate II devices.

Nishant D Patel1, Eric S Weiss, Justin Schaffer, Susan L Ullrich, Dennis C Rivard, Ashish S Shah, Stuart D Russell, John V Conte.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Right heart dysfunction confers significant morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device implantation and historically occurs in as many as a third of patients. It is unknown whether newer axial flow pumps have a different impact on postimplant right heart dysfunction. We compared the incidence of right heart dysfunction after implantation of the pulsatile HeartMate I (XVE) and the continuous flow HeartMate II left ventricular assist device.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent HeartMate I or HeartMate II implantation between June 2000 and March 2007. Right heart dysfunction was defined as inotropic/vasodilator support for 14 or more consecutive days or the need for a right ventricular assist device, or both.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients underwent HeartMate implantation; 43 received a HeartMate I and 34 received a HeartMate II, for a mean left ventricular assist device support time of 202 and 160 days, respectively. Operative mortality was lower for HeartMate II patients (28% versus 15%; p = 0.26). The HeartMate II patients had lower preoperative right ventricular stroke work index. Pulmonary vascular resistance index, right ventricular stroke work index, and pulmonary and right atrial pressures improved and were similar between groups postoperatively. Overall, right heart dysfunction developed in 35% of HeartMate I patients (15 of 43) and 41% of HeartMate II patients (14 of 34; p = 0.63). Fewer HeartMate II patients (2) than HeartMate I patients (5) required 7 or more days of epinephrine, whereas more HeartMate II patients (7) than HeartMate I patients (5) required 7 or more days of milrinone. Six HeartMate I and 3 HeartMate II patients required right ventricular assist device implantation for right heart failure. Survival was similar (p = 0.7) between groups at, respectively, 3 (63% versus 62%), 6 (58% versus 58%), and 12 months (49% versus 48%).
CONCLUSIONS: Right heart dysfunction is a persistent clinical problem after left ventricular assist device placement. We report the first study comparing the incidence of right heart dysfunction after HeartMate I versus HeartMate II implantation. Although the incidence of right heart dysfunction was similar, fewer HeartMate II patients required right ventricular assist device placement and fewer required pure inotropic support for right heart failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18721570     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.05.016

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


  27 in total

1.  Bridge to recovery: understanding the disconnect between clinical and biological outcomes.

Authors:  Stavros G Drakos; Abdallah G Kfoury; Josef Stehlik; Craig H Selzman; Bruce B Reid; John V Terrovitis; John N Nanas; Dean Y Li
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 29.690

2.  Management of Right Ventricular Failure in Pulmonary Hypertension (and After LVAD Implantation).

Authors:  Brittany Palmer; Brent Lampert; Michael A Mathier
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2013-10

Review 3.  Right side of heart failure.

Authors:  Maya Guglin; Sameer Verma
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 4.214

4.  Anesthesia for left ventricular assist device insertion: a case series and review.

Authors:  David Broussard; Emilie Donaldson; Jason Falterman; Michael Bates
Journal:  Ochsner J       Date:  2011

Review 5.  Management of right ventricular failure in the era of ventricular assist device therapy.

Authors:  Michael L Craig
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2011-03

6.  Quantification of interventricular dyssynchrony during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support.

Authors:  Junichi Shimamura; Takashi Nishimura; Toshihide Mizuno; Yoshiaki Takewa; Tomonori Tsukiya; Ayako Inatomi; Masahiko Ando; Akihide Umeki; Noritsugu Naito; Minoru Ono; Eisuke Tatsumi
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2019-06-15       Impact factor: 1.731

7.  Model for end-stage liver disease predicts right ventricular failure in patients with left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Gardner L Yost; Laura Coyle; Geetha Bhat; Antone J Tatooles
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2015-07-18       Impact factor: 1.731

8.  Early Biventricular Assist Device Use in Children: A Single-Center Review of 31 Patients.

Authors:  Jacob R Miller; Deirdre J Epstein; Matthew C Henn; Tracey Guthrie; Richard B Schuessler; Kathleen E Simpson; Charles E Canter; Pirooz Eghtesady; Umar S Boston
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 9.  Treatment and Prognosis of Pulmonary Hypertension in the Left Ventricular Assist Device Patient.

Authors:  Christopher W Jensen; Andrew B Goldstone; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2016-06

Review 10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.