Literature DB >> 26117282

Left Ventricular Decompression During Speed Optimization Ramps in Patients Supported by Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Device-Specific Performance Characteristics and Impact on Diagnostic Algorithms.

Nir Uriel1, Allison P Levin2, Gabriel T Sayer3, Kanika P Mody2, Sunu S Thomas2, Sirtaz Adatya3, Melana Yuzefpolskaya2, Arthur R Garan2, Alexander Breskin2, Hiroo Takayama2, Paolo C Colombo2, Yoshifumi Naka2, Daniel Burkhoff4, Ulrich P Jorde5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Echocardiographic ramp tests have been widely used to help guide speed adjustments and for identification of potential device malfunctions in patients with axial continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) (Heartmate II LVAD [HMII]). Recently, the use of centrifugal-flow LVADs (Heartware LVAD [HVAD]) has been on the rise. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of ramp tests for assessing ventricular decompression in HVAD patients. METHODS AND
RESULTS: In this prospective study, ramp tests were performed before index hospitalization discharge or at the time of device malfunction. Vital signs, device parameters (including flow), and echocardiographic parameters (including left ventricular end-diastolic dimension [LVEDD], frequency of aortic valve [AV] opening, and valvular insufficiency) were recorded in increments of 100 rpm, from 2,300 rpm to 3,200 rpm. Twenty-six ramp tests were performed, 19 for speed optimization and 7 for device malfunction assessment. The average speed after the speed optimization ramp tests was 2,534.74 ± 156.32 RPM, and the AV closed at a mean speed of 2,751.77 ± 227.16 rpm, with 1 patient's valve remaining open at the maximum speed. The reduction in LVEDD for each speed increase was significantly different when the AV was open or closed, at -0.09 cm/increment and -0.15 cm/increment, respectively (P = .013), which is significantly different than previously established HMII LVEDD slopes. There were also significant changes in overall device flow (P = .001), upper flow (P = .031), and lower flow (P = .003) after AV closure. The power slope did not change significantly after the AV closed (P = .656). Five of the 19 tests were stopped before completion owing to suction events, but all tests reached ≥3,000 rpm.
CONCLUSIONS: The parameter slopes for the HMII cannot be directly applied to ramp studies in HVAD patients. Overall, the LVEDD slope is drastically smaller in magnitude than the previously reported HMII findings, and speed adjustments were not based on the degree of left ventricular unloading. Therefore, the slope of the LVEDD-rpm relationship is not likely to be helpful in evaluating HVAD function.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LVAD; LVEDD slope; Ramp; unloading

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26117282     DOI: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2015.06.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Card Fail        ISSN: 1071-9164            Impact factor:   5.712


  17 in total

1.  Myocardial Recovery in Patients Receiving Contemporary Left Ventricular Assist Devices: Results From the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS).

Authors:  Veli K Topkara; A Reshad Garan; Barry Fine; Amandine F Godier-Furnémont; Alexander Breskin; Barbara Cagliostro; Melana Yuzefpolskaya; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Donna M Mancini; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo
Journal:  Circ Heart Fail       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 8.790

Review 2.  Clinical implications of hemodynamic assessment during left ventricular assist device therapy.

Authors:  Teruhiko Imamura; Ben Chung; Ann Nguyen; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Cardiol       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  HVAD Waveform Analysis as a Noninvasive Marker of Pulmonary Capillary Wedge Pressure: A First Step Toward the Development of a Smart Left Ventricular Assist Device Pump.

Authors:  Jonathan Grinstein; Daniel Rodgers; Sara Kalantari; Gabriel Sayer; Gene H Kim; Nitasha Sarswat; Sirtaz Adatya; Takeyoshi Ota; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Daniel Burkhoff; Nir Uriel
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2018 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 4.  Percutaneous Transcatheter Therapies for the Management of Left Ventricular Assist Device Complications.

Authors:  Rohan J Kalathiya; Jonathan Grinstein; Nir Uriel; Atman P Shah
Journal:  J Invasive Cardiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 2.022

5.  Acoustic Signatures of Left Ventricular Assist Device Thrombosis.

Authors:  Priyesh Patel; Boyla Mainsah; Carmelo A Milano; Douglas P Nowacek; Leslie Collins; Ravi Karra
Journal:  J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther       Date:  2019-01-18

Review 6.  Expanding the Scope of Multimodality Imaging in Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support.

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

Review 7.  Chronic outpatient management of patients with a left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Elisa M Smith; Jennifer Franzwa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Echocardiographic Predictors of Hemodynamics in Patients Supported With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Authors:  Jonathan Grinstein; Teruhiko Imamura; Eric Kruse; Sara Kalantari; Daniel Rodgers; Sirtaz Adatya; Gabriel Sayer; Gene H Kim; Nitasha Sarswat; Jayant Raihkelkar; Takeyoshi Ota; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Daniel Burkhoff; Roberto Lang; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 5.712

Review 9.  Hemodynamic Pump-Patient Interactions and Left Ventricular Assist Device Imaging.

Authors:  Nikhil Narang; Jayant Raikhelkar; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  Cardiol Clin       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 2.213

Review 10.  Reverse Remodeling With Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Authors:  Daniel Burkhoff; Veli K Topkara; Gabriel Sayer; Nir Uriel
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 23.213

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.