Journal of cardiac failure · 2017
Outcomes of Restrictive and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathies After LVAD: An INTERMACS Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Patel Snehal R, Saeed Omar, Naftel David, Myers Susan, Kirklin James, Jorde Ulrich P, Goldstein Daniel J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patients with restrictive (RCM) and hypertrophic (HCM) cardiomyopathies are felt to be a difficult population to treat with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. Scarce data exist on outcomes of continuous-flow (CF) LVAD support in these challenging patient cohorts.
METHODS: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry was queried for all patients with RCM (n = 94) and HCM (n = 104) who underwent CF LVAD implantation between March 2008 and March 2014. Survival, adverse event rates, baseline demographics, echocardiography parameters, and competing outcomes were compared with patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 8749).
RESULTS: Left ventricular size was smaller and baseline EF was higher in RCM and HCM compared with DCM patients. Nonetheless, these parameters were not completely normal in the RCM and HCM groups, suggesting that most of these patients exhibited features of a DCM and represented a mixed phenotype. In these specific patient populations, survival up to 4 years was not different among the 3 groups (log rank 0.25) and competing outcomes at 1 year were similar. In the subgroup of patients with very small ventricles (ie, < 5.0 cm), survival was far inferior. Finally, overall rates of right ventricular assist device requirement, hemolysis, pump dysfunction, and cardiac arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients with HCM and RCM undergo CF LVAD implantation, and most that do display some features of a DCM. Overall survival and adverse event profiles of these patients were similar to traditional DCM patients; however, in those with very small ventricles, survival was inferior.
METHODS: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Registry was queried for all patients with RCM (n = 94) and HCM (n = 104) who underwent CF LVAD implantation between March 2008 and March 2014. Survival, adverse event rates, baseline demographics, echocardiography parameters, and competing outcomes were compared with patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) (n = 8749).
RESULTS: Left ventricular size was smaller and baseline EF was higher in RCM and HCM compared with DCM patients. Nonetheless, these parameters were not completely normal in the RCM and HCM groups, suggesting that most of these patients exhibited features of a DCM and represented a mixed phenotype. In these specific patient populations, survival up to 4 years was not different among the 3 groups (log rank 0.25) and competing outcomes at 1 year were similar. In the subgroup of patients with very small ventricles (ie, < 5.0 cm), survival was far inferior. Finally, overall rates of right ventricular assist device requirement, hemolysis, pump dysfunction, and cardiac arrhythmias were similar among the 3 groups.
CONCLUSION: Relatively few patients with HCM and RCM undergo CF LVAD implantation, and most that do display some features of a DCM. Overall survival and adverse event profiles of these patients were similar to traditional DCM patients; however, in those with very small ventricles, survival was inferior.