BACKGROUND: Early right ventricular (RV) failure after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation increases morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous right ventricular assist device (pRVAD) support is an alternative to more invasive surgical RVAD (sRVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed patients receiving isolated pRVAD or sRVAD after durable LVAD at our center in the years 2007-2018. Hemodynamic parameters before and after implantation and survival outcomes were compared among groups. Nineteen patients received pRVAD and 21 sRVAD. Hemodynamic parameters improved immediately with the use of pRVAD; central venous pressure decreased (from 15.9 ± 2.4 to 12.3 ± 3.2 mm Hg; P<.001) and cardiac index increased (from 2.4 ± 0.5 to 3.5 ± 0.8 L·min-1·m-2; P<.001). These were sustained after device removal and were similar to those with the use of sRVAD. Patients with pRVAD required fewer blood transfusions and mechanically ventilated days than those with sRVAD. Among survivors, intensive care unit and hospital days were fewer with the use of pRVAD: 21 (16-27) versus 34 (27-46) ICU days (P = .01); 43.5 (30-66) versus 91 (62-111) hospital days (P = .03). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality with the use of pRVAD compared with sRVAD (21.1% vs 42.9%; P = .14), but there was a trend toward a higher rate of discharge free from hemodialysis (73.7% vs 47.6%; P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Novel pRVAD systems for RV failure provide hemodynamic benefits similar to sRVAD, are associated with less morbidity, and should be considered as an alternative to sRVAD.
BACKGROUND: Early right ventricular (RV) failure after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation increases morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous right ventricular assist device (pRVAD) support is an alternative to more invasive surgical RVAD (sRVAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively reviewed patients receiving isolated pRVAD or sRVAD after durable LVAD at our center in the years 2007-2018. Hemodynamic parameters before and after implantation and survival outcomes were compared among groups. Nineteen patients received pRVAD and 21 sRVAD. Hemodynamic parameters improved immediately with the use of pRVAD; central venous pressure decreased (from 15.9 ± 2.4 to 12.3 ± 3.2 mm Hg; P<.001) and cardiac index increased (from 2.4 ± 0.5 to 3.5 ± 0.8 L·min-1·m-2; P<.001). These were sustained after device removal and were similar to those with the use of sRVAD. Patients with pRVAD required fewer blood transfusions and mechanically ventilated days than those with sRVAD. Among survivors, intensive care unit and hospital days were fewer with the use of pRVAD: 21 (16-27) versus 34 (27-46) ICU days (P = .01); 43.5 (30-66) versus 91 (62-111) hospital days (P = .03). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality with the use of pRVAD compared with sRVAD (21.1% vs 42.9%; P = .14), but there was a trend toward a higher rate of discharge free from hemodialysis (73.7% vs 47.6%; P = .09). CONCLUSIONS: Novel pRVAD systems for RV failure provide hemodynamic benefits similar to sRVAD, are associated with less morbidity, and should be considered as an alternative to sRVAD.
Authors: Manuel Pérez-Guillén; Ana M Bel-Mínguez; Carlos Domínguez-Massa; Tomás Heredia-Cambra; Raquel López-Vilella; Salvador Torregrosa-Puerta Journal: Arch Cardiol Mex Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Asad Ali Usman; Audrey Elizabeth Spelde; Stuart Weiss; John G Augoustides; William Vernick; Jacob Gutsche Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Valeria Lo Coco; Maria Elena De Piero; Giulio Massimi; Giovanni Chiarini; Giuseppe M Raffa; Mariusz Kowalewski; Jos Maessen; Roberto Lorusso Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 2.895