Journal of cardiac surgery · 2019
Outcomes of obese patients undergoing less invasive LVAD implantation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Voorhees Hannah J, Sorensen Erik N, Pasrija Chetan, Kaczorowski David, Griffith Bartley P, Kon Zachary N
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Obesity and heart failure rates continue to rise, confronting heart failure centers with challenging left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations. Although less invasive approaches to implantation have been successfully implemented by many centers, this surgical approach has not yet been well evaluated in the obese population. Therefore, we sought to describe our experience with less invasive device implantation in this patient cohort.
METHODS: All implants of centrifugal ventricular assist devices were retrospectively reviewed. Patients implanted with a less invasive approach via a left thoracotomy and upper hemisternotomy were included. Patients were stratified by body mass index (<30 vs ≥30 kg/m2 ). Perioperative and short-term outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients implanted with the less invasive approach (BMI <30: 27 vs. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 : 15) were identified. The obese cohort was significantly younger (58.5 vs 46.1 years, P = .022), while other preoperative demographics were similar. Postoperative mechanical ventilator time was longer in the obese cohort (22.9 vs 46.1 hour, P = .045). However, other perioperative and short-term outcomes were comparable. Wound dehiscence occurred in one obese patient. Six-month survival was also comparable between cohorts (96.3% vs 86.7%, P = .264).
CONCLUSIONS: In this limited patient series, outcomes appear to be comparable in nonobese and obese patients undergoing less invasive LVAD implantation. Therefore, obesity should perhaps not be viewed as a lone contraindication to the application of this surgical approach.
METHODS: All implants of centrifugal ventricular assist devices were retrospectively reviewed. Patients implanted with a less invasive approach via a left thoracotomy and upper hemisternotomy were included. Patients were stratified by body mass index (<30 vs ≥30 kg/m2 ). Perioperative and short-term outcomes were evaluated.
RESULTS: Forty-two patients implanted with the less invasive approach (BMI <30: 27 vs. BMI ≥30 kg/m2 : 15) were identified. The obese cohort was significantly younger (58.5 vs 46.1 years, P = .022), while other preoperative demographics were similar. Postoperative mechanical ventilator time was longer in the obese cohort (22.9 vs 46.1 hour, P = .045). However, other perioperative and short-term outcomes were comparable. Wound dehiscence occurred in one obese patient. Six-month survival was also comparable between cohorts (96.3% vs 86.7%, P = .264).
CONCLUSIONS: In this limited patient series, outcomes appear to be comparable in nonobese and obese patients undergoing less invasive LVAD implantation. Therefore, obesity should perhaps not be viewed as a lone contraindication to the application of this surgical approach.