Literature DB >> 21137108

Ventricular assist device in patients with prosthetic heart valves.

Suyog A Mokashi1, Jan D Schmitto, Lawrence S Lee, James D Rawn, R Morton Bolman, Prem S Shekar, Gregory S Couper, Frederick Y Chen.   

Abstract

Ventricular assist device (VAD) support inpatients with a prosthetic heart valve had previously been considered a relative contraindication due to an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We report our clinical experience of VAD implantation in patients with prosthetic heart valves, including both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. The clinical records of 133 consecutive patients who underwent VAD implantation at a single institution from January 2002 through June 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Six of these patients had a prosthetic valve in place at the time of device implantation. Patient demographics,operative characteristics, and postoperative complications were reviewed.Of the six patients,four were male.The mean age was 57.8 years (range 35–66 years). The various prosthetic cardiac valves included a mechanical aortic valve (n = 2), a bioprosthetic aortic valve (n = 3), and a mechanical mitral valve (n = 1).The indications for VAD support included bridge to transplantation (n = 2), bridge to recovery (n = 1), and postcardiotomy ventricular failure(n = 3). Three patients underwent left ventricular assist device placement and three received a right ventricular assist device. Postoperatively, standard anticoagulation management began with a heparin infusion (if possible)followed by oral anticoagulation.The 30-day mortality was50% (3/6). The mean duration of support among survivors was 194.3 days (range 7–369 days) compared with 16.0 days(range 4–29 days) for nonsurvivors. Of the three survivors,two were successfully bridged to heart transplantation and one recovered native ventricular function.Among the three nonsurvivors,acute renal failure developed in each case, and two developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This study suggests that VAD placement in patients with a prosthethic heart valve, either mechanical or bioprosthetic,appears to be a reasonable option.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21137108     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01102.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Artif Organs        ISSN: 0160-564X            Impact factor:   3.094


  4 in total

1.  Technique for chest compressions in adult CPR.

Authors:  Taufiek K Rajab; Charles N Pozner; Claudius Conrad; Lawrence H Cohn; Jan D Schmitto
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2011-12-10       Impact factor: 5.469

Review 2.  Minimally-invasive LVAD Implantation: State of the Art.

Authors:  Jasmin S Hanke; Sebastian V Rojas; Murat Avsar; Axel Haverich; Jan D Schmitto
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2015

3.  Mitral valve and short-term ventricular assist devices; potential mechanical complications.

Authors:  Hani N Mufti; Tamer Elghobary; Shawn K Murray; Roger J F Baskett
Journal:  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Rep       Date:  2013-07-18

4.  Survival following a concomitant aortic valve procedure during left ventricular assist device surgery: an ISHLT Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (IMACS) Registry analysis.

Authors:  Jesse F Veenis; Yunus C Yalcin; Jasper J Brugts; Alina A Constantinescu; Olivier C Manintveld; Jos A Bekkers; Ad J J C Bogers; Kadir Caliskan
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2020-10-06       Impact factor: 15.534

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.