BACKGROUND: Aortic valve integrity is crucial for optimal left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Pre-existing native aortic insufficiency, aortic valve incompetence acquired during support, as well as previously placed prosthetic aortic valves present unique problems for these patients. METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed data for 28 patients who underwent left ventricular outflow tract closure associated with HeartMate I (n =12) and HeartMate II (n = 16) LVAD insertion or exchange. Indications for valve closure, surgical technique, LVAD function, survival rates and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Survival rates were compared with those of HeartMate LVAD patients (n = 104) who did not undergo aortic valve closure. RESULTS: Indications for closure included native aortic valve insufficiency (10 patients), aortic valve deterioration after prolonged LVAD support (8 patients) and previously placed mechanical (9 patients) or bioprosthetic aortic prostheses (1 patient). There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths (mean 227 days post-operatively). Of the deaths, none were due to aortic valve closure. Actuarial survival was 78% at 1 year and 53% at 3 years, which was statistically better than for our patients with an intact aortic outflow (61% at 1 year, 45% at 3 years; p < 0.05). Five patients had transplants, 1 patient was successfully bridged to recovery, and 15 patients remain on LVAD support. No patient with outflow closure developed regurgitation, embolization or compromised LVAD support. CONCLUSION: Outflow tract closure in LVAD-supported patients is safe, often necessary and well tolerated.
BACKGROUND: Aortic valve integrity is crucial for optimal left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Pre-existing native aortic insufficiency, aortic valve incompetence acquired during support, as well as previously placed prosthetic aortic valves present unique problems for these patients. METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed data for 28 patients who underwent left ventricular outflow tract closure associated with HeartMate I (n =12) and HeartMate II (n = 16) LVAD insertion or exchange. Indications for valve closure, surgical technique, LVAD function, survival rates and complications were retrospectively analyzed. Survival rates were compared with those of HeartMate LVAD patients (n = 104) who did not undergo aortic valve closure. RESULTS: Indications for closure included native aortic valve insufficiency (10 patients), aortic valve deterioration after prolonged LVAD support (8 patients) and previously placed mechanical (9 patients) or bioprosthetic aortic prostheses (1 patient). There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths (mean 227 days post-operatively). Of the deaths, none were due to aortic valve closure. Actuarial survival was 78% at 1 year and 53% at 3 years, which was statistically better than for our patients with an intact aortic outflow (61% at 1 year, 45% at 3 years; p < 0.05). Five patients had transplants, 1 patient was successfully bridged to recovery, and 15 patients remain on LVAD support. No patient with outflow closure developed regurgitation, embolization or compromised LVAD support. CONCLUSION: Outflow tract closure in LVAD-supported patients is safe, often necessary and well tolerated.
Authors: Zengsheng Chen; Sofen K Jena; Guruprasad A Giridharan; Michael A Sobieski; Steven C Koenig; Mark S Slaughter; Bartley P Griffith; Zhongjun J Wu Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.602