Simon Maltais1, Vahtang Tchantchaleishvili2, Hartzell V Schaff3, Richard C Daly3, Rakesh M Suri3, Joseph A Dearani3, Yan Topilsky4, John M Stulak3, Lyle D Joyce3, Soon J Park5. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn. 4. Division of Cardiology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn. Electronic address: Park.Soon@mayo.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63%), and 33 patients (37%) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7% in the conventional surgery group vs 3% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P = .65) and at 1 year (22% in the conventional surgery group vs 15% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P = .58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94% vs 71%, P = .171). CONCLUSIONS: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.
OBJECTIVES:Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63%), and 33 patients (37%) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7% in the conventional surgery group vs 3% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P = .65) and at 1 year (22% in the conventional surgery group vs 15% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P = .58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94% vs 71%, P = .171). CONCLUSIONS: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.
Authors: Christopher Wavell; Andrew Sokolowski; Michelle L Klingel; Charles Yin; A Dave Nagpal Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 2.089