The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation · 2018
Multicenter experience with durable biventricular assist devices.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shah Palak, Ha Richard, Singh Ramesh, Cotts William, Adler Eric, Kiernan Michael, Brambatti Michela, Meehan Karen, Phillips Sheila, Kidambi Sumanth, Macaluso Gregory P, Banerjee Dipanjan, Mooney Dierdre, Pham Duc, Pretorius Victor D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Severe right ventricular failure necessitating a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) complicates 6% to 11% of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants. Patient outcomes for those receiving durable continuous-flow VADs in a biventricular configuration (i.e., BiVAD) have been reported in limited case series.
METHODS: Data from United States centers with ≥ 6 BiVAD implants were collected. Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving contemporaneous (i.e., same surgery) vs staged implantation of the HVAD as a BiVAD were compared.
RESULTS: From 2011 to 2017, 46 patients received durable BiVADs and had the following characteristics: median age, 46 years (interquartile range [IQR], 19-67 years), non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (80%), bridge to transplant (83%), Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1 or 2 (92%), use of temporary circulatory support (37%), right atrial pressure 19 mm Hg (IQR, 14-23 mm Hg), and cardiac index of 1.6 liters/min/m2 (IQR, 1.2-2.1 liters/min/m2). Operative mortality was 33%. Equal numbers of patients received a right atrial or right ventricular implant. Contemporaneous BiVAD implantation occurred in 31 patients (67%), and compared with 15 patients (33%) with staged implants, these patients had a shorter intensive care unit length of stay of 12 days (IQR, 7-23 days) vs 42 days (IQR, 28-48 days, p = 0.035) and were more likely to be discharged from the hospital on BiVAD support (61% vs 27%, p = 0.04). RVAD thrombosis developed in 17 patients (37%). Patients with contemporaneous BiVAD implants had a 1-year survival of 74% compared with 40% in staged BiVAD patients (p = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving durable BiVADs represent a critically ill patient population with severe biventricular failure who have high operative mortality and RVAD thrombosis rates. The 1-year survival for patients receiving contemporaneous BiVADs in experienced centers mirrors other contemporary durable biventricular support strategies.
METHODS: Data from United States centers with ≥ 6 BiVAD implants were collected. Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving contemporaneous (i.e., same surgery) vs staged implantation of the HVAD as a BiVAD were compared.
RESULTS: From 2011 to 2017, 46 patients received durable BiVADs and had the following characteristics: median age, 46 years (interquartile range [IQR], 19-67 years), non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (80%), bridge to transplant (83%), Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Profile 1 or 2 (92%), use of temporary circulatory support (37%), right atrial pressure 19 mm Hg (IQR, 14-23 mm Hg), and cardiac index of 1.6 liters/min/m2 (IQR, 1.2-2.1 liters/min/m2). Operative mortality was 33%. Equal numbers of patients received a right atrial or right ventricular implant. Contemporaneous BiVAD implantation occurred in 31 patients (67%), and compared with 15 patients (33%) with staged implants, these patients had a shorter intensive care unit length of stay of 12 days (IQR, 7-23 days) vs 42 days (IQR, 28-48 days, p = 0.035) and were more likely to be discharged from the hospital on BiVAD support (61% vs 27%, p = 0.04). RVAD thrombosis developed in 17 patients (37%). Patients with contemporaneous BiVAD implants had a 1-year survival of 74% compared with 40% in staged BiVAD patients (p = 0.11).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving durable BiVADs represent a critically ill patient population with severe biventricular failure who have high operative mortality and RVAD thrombosis rates. The 1-year survival for patients receiving contemporaneous BiVADs in experienced centers mirrors other contemporary durable biventricular support strategies.