Literature DB >> 24418362

Impact of concurrent surgical valve procedures in patients receiving continuous-flow devices.

Ranjit John1, Yoshifumi Naka2, Soon J Park3, Chittoor Sai-Sudhakar4, Christopher Salerno5, Kartik S Sundareswaran6, David J Farrar6, Carmelo A Milano7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Preexisting valve pathology is common in patients with end-stage heart failure undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement. The indications and subsequent benefits of performing valvular procedures in these patients are unclear. The objective of this study was to determine the impact of performing concurrent surgical valve procedures in a large cohort of patients receiving LVADs.
METHODS: One thousand one hundred six patients received the HeartMate II (HMII) LVAD in the bridge to transplant (n = 470) and destination therapy (n = 636) clinical trials. Of these, 374 patients (34%) had concurrent cardiac surgery procedures as follows: 242 patients (21%) with 281 concurrent valve procedures (VP) (aortic 80, mitral 45, and tricuspid 156), and 641 patients had only HMII LVAD. The focus of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing HMII + VP compared with those who received HMII alone.
RESULTS: Patients undergoing HMII + VP were significantly older, had higher blood urea nitrogen levels and central venous pressure, and decreased right ventricular stroke work index; intraoperatively, the median cardiopulmonary bypass times were also longer. The unadjusted 30-day mortality was significantly higher in patients undergoing HMII + VP (10.3% vs 4.8% for LVAD alone, P = .005). Subgroup analysis of individual VPs showed that higher mortality occurred in patients with HMII plus 2 or more VPs (13.5%, P = .04) followed by trends for increased mortality with HMII plus mitral alone (11.5%, P = NS), HMII plus aortic alone (10.9%, P = NS), and HMII plus tricuspid (8.9%, P = NS) procedures. Of these various groups, only patients undergoing HMII + isolated aortic VP (P = .001) and HMII + multiple VPs (P = .046) had significantly worse long-term survival compared with patients undergoing HMII alone. Right heart failure and right ventricular assist device use was increased in patients undergoing VPs, but there was no difference in the incidence of bleeding or stroke.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients frequently require concurrent VPs at the time of LVAD placement; these patients are sicker and have higher early mortality. Furthermore, right ventricular dysfunction is increased in these patients. Further studies to develop selection criteria for concurrent valve interventions are important to further improve clinical outcomes.
Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  22; 27; 35; AI; BTT; BUN; CVP; DT; HMII; HeartMate II; LV; LVAD; RA; RV; RVAD; RVSWI; TR; VP; aortic insufficiency; blood urea nitrogen; bridge to heart transplant; central venous pressure; destination therapy; left ventricular; left ventricular assist device; right atrial; right ventricular; right ventricular assist device; right ventricular stroke work index; tricuspid regurgitation; valve procedure

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24418362     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  8 in total

Review 1.  Left ventricular assist device implantation strategies and outcomes.

Authors:  LaVone A Smith; Leora T Yarboro; Jamie L W Kennedy
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.895

2.  Impact of mitral valve intervention with left ventricular assist device implantation on postoperative outcomes and morphologic change.

Authors:  Hiroki Hata; Tomoyuki Fujita; Hatsue Ishibashi-Ueda; Kensuke Kuroda; Osamu Seguchi; Yorihiko Matsumoto; Masanobu Yanase; Takuma Sato; Seiko Nakajima; Norihide Fukushima; Junjiro Kobayashi
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 1.731

Review 3.  Impact of tricuspid valve surgery at the time of left ventricular assist device insertion on postoperative outcomes.

Authors:  Shannon M Dunlay; Salil V Deo; Soon J Park
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 4.  Bridge to removal: a paradigm shift for left ventricular assist device therapy.

Authors:  Craig H Selzman; Jesse L Madden; Aaron H Healy; Stephen H McKellar; Antigone Koliopoulou; Josef Stehlik; Stavros G Drakos
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Concomitant aortic valve procedures in patients undergoing implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: An INTERMACS database analysis.

Authors:  Jason O Robertson; David C Naftel; Susan L Myers; Sunil Prasad; Gail D Mertz; Akinobu Itoh; Francis D Pagani; James K Kirklin; Scott C Silvestry
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 10.247

6.  Impact of tricuspid valve insufficiency on the performance of left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Claudio J R Gomez Hamacher; Carolin Torregroza; Najla Sadat; Daniel Scheiber; Jil-Cathrin von der Beek; Ralf Westenfeld; Ivonne Jeanette Knorr; Martin Sager; Artur Lichtenberg; Diyar Saeed
Journal:  JTCVS Open       Date:  2020-09-24

7.  Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Concomitant Dor Procedure: a Single Center Experience.

Authors:  Andreas Schaefer; Yvonne Schneeberger; Liesa Castro; Bjoern Sill; Yousuf Alassar; Meike Rybczynski; Markus J Barten; Hanno Grahn; Hermann Reichenspurner; Sebastian A Philipp; Alexander M Bernhardt
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-08-01

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.