Literature DB >> 18926400

Differences in pulsatile and non-pulsatile mechanical circulatory support in long-term use.

Thorsten Drews1, Michael Jurmann, Dandel Michael, Pasic Miralem, Yuguo Weng, Roland Hetzer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-pulsatile left ventricular assist device (LVADs) systems have attained more interest for long-term use. We present the results of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) with pulsatile and non-pulsatile LVAD in use in patients for more than 1 year.
METHODS: Between February 1999 and February 2006, 48 patients (mean age, 51; range, 20-72 years) received an LVAD: 24 each had pulsatile (Group A) and non-pulsatile MCS (Group B).
RESULTS: Mean support time was 862 days (range, 366-1876 days) in Group A, and 631 days (range 368-1129 days) in Group B. In Group A, 20 patients (80%) were at home for more than 1 year, in Group B, 21 patients (88%). Five VAD-related complications occurred (4 pump exchanges, 1 controller exchange). Echocardiography showed better LV unloading, and the LV end-diastolic diameter was significantly lower in Group A (60 mm) than in Group B (69 mm). Neither the number of driveline/cannula infections nor the number of bleeding and embolic complications differed significantly between groups. Thirty-two patients received heart transplants, 11 died, and 5 still have the VAD.
CONCLUSIONS: Although echocardiographic data show that pulsatile LVADs seem to better unload the LV, this could not be confirmed by data from right ventricle catheterization. Owing to sufficient LV unloading, longer device durability, less need of anticoagulation therapy, and greater quality of life, non-pulsatile devices are preferred for long-term use. Nevertheless, both systems can be used with good quality of life and an acceptable rate of complications for extended periods of time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18926400     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2008.07.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant        ISSN: 1053-2498            Impact factor:   10.247


  10 in total

1.  Comparison of the effects of continuous and pulsatile left ventricular-assist devices on ventricular unloading using a cardiac electromechanics model.

Authors:  Ki Moo Lim; Jason Constantino; Viatcheslav Gurev; Renjun Zhu; Eun Bo Shim; Natalia A Trayanova
Journal:  J Physiol Sci       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 2.781

2.  Right ventricle-sparing left ventricular resection and replacement with a continuous-flow rotary blood pump: an in vivo experiment.

Authors:  O H Frazier; Egemen Tuzun; Cuneyt Narin; William E Cohn
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2010

3.  Flow field study comparing design iterations of a 50 cc left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Jason C Nanna; Jennifer A Wivholm; Steven Deutsch; Keefe B Manning
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2011 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.872

4.  Physiologic and hematologic concerns of rotary blood pumps: what needs to be improved?

Authors:  Tohid Pirbodaghi; Siavash Asgari; Chris Cotter; Kevin Bourque
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.214

Review 5.  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

Review 6.  Ventricular Assist Devices - Evolution of Surgical Heart Failure Treatment.

Authors:  Dominik Wiedemann; Thomas Haberl; Julia Riebandt; Paul Simon; Günther Laufer; Daniel Zimpfer
Journal:  Eur Cardiol       Date:  2014-07

Review 7.  Review of recent results using computational fluid dynamics simulations in patients receiving mechanical assist devices for end-stage heart failure.

Authors:  Mina Berty Farag; Christof Karmonik; Fabian Rengier; Matthias Loebe; Matthias Karck; Hendrik von Tengg-Kobligk; Arjang Ruhparwar; Sasan Partovi
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2014 Jul-Sep

Review 8.  Physiologic effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

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

9.  Current status of mechanical circulatory support: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kyriakos Spiliopoulos; Gregory Giamouzis; George Karayannis; Dimos Karangelis; Stelios Koutsias; Andreas Kalogeropoulos; Vasiliki Georgiopoulou; John Skoularigis; Javed Butler; Filippos Triposkiadis
Journal:  Cardiol Res Pract       Date:  2012-08-26       Impact factor: 1.866

Review 10.  Current state-of-the-art of device therapy for advanced heart failure.

Authors:  Lawrence S Lee; Prem S Shekar
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 1.351

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.