BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support as bridge to recovery (BTR) is uncommon for subjects with chronic heart failure. Myocardial recovery is more evident in recent onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy (ROCM); however, the prevalence of BTR in this subset has not been addressed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the use of LVAD support for subjects with ROCM in the Intervention in Myocarditis and Acute Cardiomyopathy 2 (IMAC2) study. The overall cohort (n = 373) was 38% female, 21% black, with a mean age of 45 ± 14 years. LVAD support was used in 3.8% (n = 14, 43% female, age 32 ± 10). Of LVAD subjects, 57% (8/14) were BTR, including 73% (8/11) of subjects with symptoms ≤4 months at the time of support. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was smaller in BTR than nonrecovered (NR) subjects (P = .04). Myocardial inflammation was more common in BTR (75% versus 0%, P = .005), whereas fibrosis was less evident (25% versus 100%, P = .005). Of BTR subjects, 7/8 (87.5%) were alive and free of transplant with median follow-up of 19 months. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter registry of ROCM, BTR was common and occurred in the majority of subjects requiring LVAD support. Histology and LVEDD may assist in predicting potential for BTR in ROCM.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support as bridge to recovery (BTR) is uncommon for subjects with chronic heart failure. Myocardial recovery is more evident in recent onset nonischemic cardiomyopathy (ROCM); however, the prevalence of BTR in this subset has not been addressed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the use of LVAD support for subjects with ROCM in the Intervention in Myocarditis and Acute Cardiomyopathy 2 (IMAC2) study. The overall cohort (n = 373) was 38% female, 21% black, with a mean age of 45 ± 14 years. LVAD support was used in 3.8% (n = 14, 43% female, age 32 ± 10). Of LVAD subjects, 57% (8/14) were BTR, including 73% (8/11) of subjects with symptoms ≤4 months at the time of support. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was smaller in BTR than nonrecovered (NR) subjects (P = .04). Myocardial inflammation was more common in BTR (75% versus 0%, P = .005), whereas fibrosis was less evident (25% versus 100%, P = .005). Of BTR subjects, 7/8 (87.5%) were alive and free of transplant with median follow-up of 19 months. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter registry of ROCM, BTR was common and occurred in the majority of subjects requiring LVAD support. Histology and LVEDD may assist in predicting potential for BTR in ROCM.
Authors: Anupam Basuray; Benjamin French; Bonnie Ky; Esther Vorovich; Caroline Olt; Nancy K Sweitzer; Thomas P Cappola; James C Fang Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christos P Kyriakopoulos; Chris J Kapelios; Elizabeth L Stauder; Iosif Taleb; Rana Hamouche; Konstantinos Sideris; Antigone G Koliopoulou; Michael J Bonios; Stavros G Drakos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Zaid I Almarzooq; Anubodh S Varshney; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Manan Pareek; Garrick C Stewart; Jerry D Estep; Mandeep R Mehra Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-09-18
Authors: Ahmad A Cluntun; Rachit Badolia; Sandra Lettlova; K Mark Parnell; Thirupura S Shankar; Nikolaos A Diakos; Kristofor A Olson; Iosif Taleb; Sean M Tatum; Jordan A Berg; Corey N Cunningham; Tyler Van Ry; Alex J Bott; Aspasia Thodou Krokidi; Sarah Fogarty; Sophia Skedros; Wojciech I Swiatek; Xuejing Yu; Bai Luo; Shannon Merx; Sutip Navankasattusas; James E Cox; Gregory S Ducker; William L Holland; Stephen H McKellar; Jared Rutter; Stavros G Drakos Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Sek Ying Chair; Doris Sf Yu; Michael Timothy Ng; Qun Wang; Ho Yu Cheng; Eliza Ml Wong; Janet Wh Sit Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 3.327