Comparison of Mechanical Circulatory Support by the Use of Pulsatile Left Ventricular Assist Devices Polvad MEV and Continuous Flow Heart Ware and Heart Mate II in a Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND

Mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used in patients with heart failure as a bridge to transplant or recovery. Results of use the Polish POLVAD MEV pulsatile circulatory support system and its comparison with novel devices never was done. We compared the course of patients with left ventricular circulatory support (left ventricular assist device [LVAD]) supported by POLVAD MEV or continuous flow devices Heart Mate II (HM II) and Heart Ware (HW) in single-center cohort.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 44 patients who underwent Polvad Mev (group P; n = 24 [21M/3F]) or HW or HM II (group C; n = 20 [20M/0F]) implantation between April 2007 and February 2014. Patients were in INTERMACS 1 (6 in group P and 1 in group C) or 2. Preimplant demographics, and perioperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were reviewed between groups. We analyzed baseline signs of heart failure, comorbidities, complications, and the 30- and 90-day results.

RESULTS

Among the groups, age, gender, weight, and cause of heart failure were comparable. Patients in group C suffered more frequently from hypercholesterolemia preoperatively. Patients in group P had more pulmonary complications (7 vs 0) after LVAD implantation and stay longer on intensive care unit than patients in group C (17.61 ± 16.96 vs 9.56 ± 9.42; P = .047). After exclusion, INTERMACS 1 patients it was not significant (14.8 ± 10.8 vs 9.8 ± 9.6 days; P = .065), the 30- and 90-day mortality was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Implantation of pulsatile POLVAD MEV and continuous flow devices as LVAD support provides comparable results. A greater number of complications in group P can cause increased mortality over a longer observation period.