Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society · 2015
Advantage of Pulsatility in Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling and Aortic Insufficiency Prevention During Left Ventricular Assist Device Treatment.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Imamura Teruhiko, Kinugawa Koichiro, Nitta Daisuke, Hatano Masaru, Kinoshita Osamu, Nawata Kan, Ono Minoru
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has various advantages over a pulsatile flow (PF) LVAD, but the extent of preventing aortic insufficiency (AI) by each type of LVAD remains controversial.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 86 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent LVAD implantation between 2006 and 2015, 20 propensity score-matched patients with PF LVADs and 20 with CF LVADs were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in the baseline variables of both groups. During the 6-month LVAD treatment, the LV ejection fraction of the PF group was significantly higher than that of the CF group; the PF group also had a wider pulse pressure and less enlargement of the aortic root (P<0.05 for all). Patients in the PF group experienced more frequent opening of the native aortic valve and less AI than those in the CF group (P<0.05 for both). The PF LVAD was explanted in 5 patients (25%), and a CF LVAD was explanted in 1 patient (5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CF LVADs, PF LVADs seem to have an advantage in improving LV reverse remodeling and preventing AI. It may be best to incorporate pulsatility into current CF LVADs while retaining their existing benefits.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 86 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent LVAD implantation between 2006 and 2015, 20 propensity score-matched patients with PF LVADs and 20 with CF LVADs were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in the baseline variables of both groups. During the 6-month LVAD treatment, the LV ejection fraction of the PF group was significantly higher than that of the CF group; the PF group also had a wider pulse pressure and less enlargement of the aortic root (P<0.05 for all). Patients in the PF group experienced more frequent opening of the native aortic valve and less AI than those in the CF group (P<0.05 for both). The PF LVAD was explanted in 5 patients (25%), and a CF LVAD was explanted in 1 patient (5%).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CF LVADs, PF LVADs seem to have an advantage in improving LV reverse remodeling and preventing AI. It may be best to incorporate pulsatility into current CF LVADs while retaining their existing benefits.