OBJECTIVES: Aortic insufficiency (AI) after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation can affect patient outcomes. Central aortic valve closure (CAVC) is a strategy commonly practiced; however, its efficacy has not been extensively investigated. METHODS: From March 2004 to May 2014, a total of 340 patients received a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (89; 26.2%) as destination therapy (DT). Outcomes were compared between patients with CAVC (n = 57 [16.8%]; group A) versus without repair (n = 283 [83.2%]; group B). RESULTS: Patients in group A were older, were more likely to be having DT, had a greater cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp time, and more often received intraoperative transfusions than did patients in group B. Twenty-three (40.4%) patients in group A had significant pre-existing AI, defined as >mild AI, whereas none did in group B. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that freedom from significant AI was 66.7% and 59.9% at 2 years (P = .77) in groups A and B, respectively. In the DT cohort, freedom from significant AI was 78.1% and 41.8% at 2 years (P = .077). A generalized mixed-effects model demonstrated a 57% and 69% decrease in the odds of significant AI progression among repaired patients in the entire and DT cohort, respectively, after adjusting for time effect and degree of baseline pre-existing AI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pre-existing AI, the prevalence of significant AI in patients with CAVC was comparable to the AI in those without pre-existing AI/CAVC. The efficacy of this technique was more evident in DT patients. Thus, CAVC may be an effective and durable strategy, especially in patients who require lengthy device support.
OBJECTIVES:Aortic insufficiency (AI) after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation can affect patient outcomes. Central aortic valve closure (CAVC) is a strategy commonly practiced; however, its efficacy has not been extensively investigated. METHODS: From March 2004 to May 2014, a total of 340 patients received a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (89; 26.2%) as destination therapy (DT). Outcomes were compared between patients with CAVC (n = 57 [16.8%]; group A) versus without repair (n = 283 [83.2%]; group B). RESULTS:Patients in group A were older, were more likely to be having DT, had a greater cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic crossclamp time, and more often received intraoperative transfusions than did patients in group B. Twenty-three (40.4%) patients in group A had significant pre-existing AI, defined as >mild AI, whereas none did in group B. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that freedom from significant AI was 66.7% and 59.9% at 2 years (P = .77) in groups A and B, respectively. In the DT cohort, freedom from significant AI was 78.1% and 41.8% at 2 years (P = .077). A generalized mixed-effects model demonstrated a 57% and 69% decrease in the odds of significant AI progression among repaired patients in the entire and DT cohort, respectively, after adjusting for time effect and degree of baseline pre-existing AI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pre-existing AI, the prevalence of significant AI in patients with CAVC was comparable to the AI in those without pre-existing AI/CAVC. The efficacy of this technique was more evident in DTpatients. Thus, CAVC may be an effective and durable strategy, especially in patients who require lengthy device support.
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