Snehal R Patel1, Omar Saeed2, David Naftel3, Susan Myers3, James Kirklin3, Ulrich P Jorde2, Daniel J Goldstein4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY. Electronic address: snepatel@montefiore.org. 2. Division of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Alabama, Bronx, NY. 4. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic (HCM) cardiomyopathies are felt to be a difficult population to treat with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Scarce data exist on outcomes of continuous-flow (CF) LVAD support in these challenging patient cohorts. METHODS: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry was queried for all patients with RCM (n = 94) and HCM (n = 104) who underwent CF LVAD implantation between March 2008 and March 2014. Survival, adverse event rates, baseline demographics, echocardiography parameters, and competing outcomes were compared with patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 8749). RESULTS: Left ventricular size was smaller and baseline EF was higher in RCM and HCM compared with DCM patients. Nonetheless, these parameters were not completely normal in the RCM and HCM groups, suggesting that most of these patients exhibited features of a DCM and represented a mixed phenotype. In these specific patient populations, survival up to 4 years was not different among the 3 groups (log rank 0.25) and competing outcomes at 1 year were similar. In the subgroup of patients with very small ventricles (ie, < 5.0 cm), survival was far inferior. Finally, overall rates of right ventricular assist device requirement, hemolysis, pump dysfunction, and cardiac arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients with HCM and RCM undergo CF LVAD implantation, and most that do display some features of a DCM. Overall survival and adverse event profiles of these patients were similar to traditional DCM patients; however, in those with very small ventricles, survival was inferior.
BACKGROUND:Patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic (HCM) cardiomyopathies are felt to be a difficult population to treat with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Scarce data exist on outcomes of continuous-flow (CF) LVAD support in these challenging patient cohorts. METHODS: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry was queried for all patients with RCM (n = 94) and HCM (n = 104) who underwent CF LVAD implantation between March 2008 and March 2014. Survival, adverse event rates, baseline demographics, echocardiography parameters, and competing outcomes were compared with patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 8749). RESULTS: Left ventricular size was smaller and baseline EF was higher in RCM and HCM compared with DCMpatients. Nonetheless, these parameters were not completely normal in the RCM and HCM groups, suggesting that most of these patients exhibited features of a DCM and represented a mixed phenotype. In these specific patient populations, survival up to 4 years was not different among the 3 groups (log rank 0.25) and competing outcomes at 1 year were similar. In the subgroup of patients with very small ventricles (ie, < 5.0 cm), survival was far inferior. Finally, overall rates of right ventricular assist device requirement, hemolysis, pump dysfunction, and cardiac arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients with HCM and RCM undergo CF LVAD implantation, and most that do display some features of a DCM. Overall survival and adverse event profiles of these patients were similar to traditional DCMpatients; however, in those with very small ventricles, survival was inferior.
Authors: Venkat Keshav Chivukula; Jennifer A Beckman; Anthony R Prisco; Shin Lin; Todd F Dardas; Richard K Cheng; Stephen D Farris; Jason W Smith; Nahush A Mokadam; Claudius Mahr; Alberto Aliseda Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Lakshmi Sridharan; Brian Wayda; Lauren K Truby; Farhana Latif; Susan Restaino; Koji Takeda; Hiroo Takayama; Yoshifumi Naka; Paolo C Colombo; Mathew Maurer; Maryjane A Farr; Veli K Topkara Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Lynda E Rosenfeld; Mina K Chung; Clifford V Harding; Paolo Spagnolo; Johan Grunewald; Jason Appelbaum; William H Sauer; Daniel A Culver; Jose A Joglar; Ben A Lin; Christine L Jellis; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Deborah H Kwon; Edward J Miller; Paul C Cremer; Frank Bogun; Jordana Kron; Ashley Bock; Davendra Mehta; Paul Leis; Konstantinos C Siontis; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Thomas Crawford; Peter Zimetbaum; Edwin T Zishiri; Jagmeet P Singh; Kenneth A Ellenbogen; Jonathan Chrispin; Syed Quadri; Logan L Vincent; Kristen K Patton; Steven Kalbfleish; Thomas D Callahan; Francis Murgatroyd; Marc A Judson; David Birnie; David R Okada; Christopher Maulion; Pavan Bhat; Lavanya Bellumkonda; Ron Blankstein; Richard K Cheng; Maryjane A Farr; Jerry D Estep Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-02-16
Authors: Joshua M Friedland-Little; Anna Joong; Svetlana B Shugh; Matthew J O'Connor; Neha Bansal; Ryan R Davies; Michelle S Ploutz Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 1.838
Authors: M D Omid Kiamanesh; Yasbanoo Moayedi; Natasha Aleksova; Juan Duero Posada; Ariel Gershon; Michael A Seidman; Vivek Rao; Filio Billia Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-10-06
Authors: Nisha A Gilotra; Jan M Griffin; Noelle Pavlovic; Brian A Houston; Jessica Chasler; Colleen Goetz; Jonathan Chrispin; Michelle Sharp; Edward K Kasper; Edward S Chen; Ron Blankstein; Leslie T Cooper; Emer Joyce; Farooq H Sheikh Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2021-07-11 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Andreas Escher; Young Choi; Fraser Callaghan; Bente Thamsen; Ulrich Kertzscher; Martin Schweiger; Michael Hübler; Marcus Granegger Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 3.934