Literature DB >> 9011691

Preoperative and postoperative comparison of patients with univentricular and biventricular support with the thoratec ventricular assist device as a bridge to cardiac transplantation.

D J Farrar1, J D Hill, D G Pennington, L R McBride, W L Holman, R L Kormos, D Esmore, L A Gray, P E Seifert, G P Schoettle, C H Moore, P J Hendry, J N Bhayana.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether there are differences in populations of patients with heart failure who require univentricular or biventricular circulatory support.
METHODS: Two hundred thirteen patients who were in imminent risk of dying before donor heart procurement and who received Thoratec left (LVAD) and right (RVAD) ventricular assist devices at 35 hospitals were divided into three groups: group 1 (n = 74), patients adequately supported with isolated LVADs; group 2 (n = 37), patients initially receiving an LVAD and later requiring an RVAD; and group 3 (n = 102), patients who received biventricular assistance (BiVAD) from the beginning.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any preoperative factors between the two BiVAD groups. In the combined BiVAD groups, pre-VAD cardiac index (BiVAD, 1.4 +/- 0.6 L/min per square meter, vs LVAD, 1.6 +/- 0.6 L/min per square meter) and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (BiVAD, 27 +/- 8 mm Hg, vs LVAD, 30 +/- 8 mm Hg) were significantly lower than those in the LVAD group, and pre-VAD creatinine levels were significantly higher (BiVAD, 1.9 +/- 1.1 mg/dl, vs LVAD, 1.4 +/- 0.6 mg/dl). In addition, greater proportions of patients in the BiVAD groups required mechanical ventilation before VAD placement (60% vs 35%) and were implanted under emergency conditions than in the LVAD group (22% vs 9%). The survival of patients through heart transplantation was significantly better in patients who had an LVAD (74%) than in those who had BiVADs (58%). However, there were no significant differences in posttransplantation survival through hospital discharge (LVAD, 89%; BiVAD, 81%).
CONCLUSION: Patients who received LVADs were less severely ill before the operation and consequently were more likely to survive after the operation. As the severity of illness increases, patients are more likely to require biventricular support.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9011691     DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5223(97)70416-1

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


  24 in total

1.  Decision tree for adjuvant right ventricular support in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device.

Authors:  Yajuan Wang; Marc A Simon; Pramod Bonde; Bronwyn U Harris; Jeffrey J Teuteberg; Robert L Kormos; James F Antaki
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2011-12-14       Impact factor: 10.247

Review 2.  Mechanical cardiopulmonary support in children and young adults: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ventricular assist devices, and long-term support devices.

Authors:  A C Chang; E D McKenzie
Journal:  Pediatr Cardiol       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.655

3.  Predicting right ventricular failure in the modern, continuous flow left ventricular assist device era.

Authors:  Pavan Atluri; Andrew B Goldstone; Alex S Fairman; John W MacArthur; Yasuhiro Shudo; Jeffrey E Cohen; Alexandra L Acker; William Hiesinger; Jessica L Howard; Michael A Acker; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-06-21       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 4.  Past, present, and future regulatory aspects of ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  Sonna M Patel-Raman; Eric A Chen
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2010-10-29       Impact factor: 4.132

Review 5.  Management of right ventricular failure in the era of ventricular assist device therapy.

Authors:  Michael L Craig
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2011-03

6.  Five-week use of a monopivot centrifugal blood pump as a right ventricular assist device in severe dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Takamichi Inoue; Tadashi Kitamura; Shinzo Torii; Naoji Hanayama; Norihiko Oka; Keiichi Itatani; Takahiro Tomoyasu; Yusuke Irisawa; Miyuki Shibata; Hidenori Hayashi; Minoru Ono; Kagami Miyaji
Journal:  J Artif Organs       Date:  2013-11-28       Impact factor: 1.731

7.  Comparison of early versus delayed timing of left ventricular assist device implantation as a bridge-to-transplantation: An analysis of the UNOS dataset.

Authors:  Shuichi Kitada; P Christian Schulze; Zhezhen Jin; Kevin Clerkin; Shunichi Homma; Donna M Mancini
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2015-11-09       Impact factor: 4.164

8.  Risk score derived from pre-operative data analysis predicts the need for biventricular mechanical circulatory support.

Authors:  J Raymond Fitzpatrick; John R Frederick; Vivian M Hsu; Elliott D Kozin; Mary Lou O'Hara; Elan Howell; Deborah Dougherty; Ryan C McCormick; Carine A Laporte; Jeffrey E Cohen; Kevin W Southerland; Jessica L Howard; Mariell L Jessup; Rohinton J Morris; Michael A Acker; Y Joseph Woo
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 10.247

9.  Mechanical circulatory support of the critically ill child awaiting heart transplantation.

Authors:  Avihu Z Gazit; Sanjiv K Gandhi; Charles C Canter
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rev       Date:  2010-02

10.  Extracorporeal life support in pediatric cardiac dysfunction.

Authors:  Kasim O Coskun; Sinan T Coskun; Aron F Popov; Jose Hinz; Mahmoud El-Arousy; Jan D Schmitto; Deniz Kececioglu; Reiner Koerfer
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2010-11-17       Impact factor: 1.637

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.