Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Despite improvement in outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation over the past 2 decades, high-risk recipients continue to have a prohibitive rate of morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that a less invasive approach to LVAD implantation would be associated with improved survival compared to a conventional approach in this high-risk cohort.

Methods

All consecutive LVAD recipients (2013 to 2017) that underwent centrifugal LVAD implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified as high-risk if INTERMACS 1 or required temporary VAD/venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation prior to durable VAD implantation. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: left thoracotomy with hemi-sternotomy (LTHS) high-risk, conventional sternotomy (CS) high-risk, and non-high-risk. The primary outcome was 1-year survival.

Results

A total of 57 patients (LTHS high-risk: 11, CS high-risk: 12, non-high-risk: 34) were identified. Preoperative right ventricular failure scores, HeartMate-II mortality scores, and end-organ dysfunction were similar between the 2 high-risk groups. While operative time was similar between the 3 groups, cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the LTHS high-risk group compared to other groups. There was a trend toward decreased intensive care unit length of stay and ventilator time in LTHS high-risk compared to CS high-risk patients. Moreover, between these 2 groups, there was a significant decrease in temporary right VAD support (50% vs 0%, P = 0.014), and 1-year survival was significantly higher in the LTHS group (42% vs 91%, P = 0.025).

Conclusions

Less invasive LVAD implantation appears to be associated with improved survival compared to conventional LVAD implantation in high-risk patients.

Keywords

less invasive minimally invasive ventricular assist device VAD LVAD

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kirklin

JK.

Pagani

FD.

Kormos

et al. Eighth annual INTERMACS report: special focus on framing the impact of adverse events. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36: 1080–1086.doi:10.1016/j.healun.2017.07.005

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28942782

Boyle

AJ.

Ascheim

DD.

Russo

et al. Clinical outcomes for continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients stratified by pre-operative INTERMACS classification. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30: 402–407.doi:10.1016/j.healun.2010.10.016

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21168346

den Uil

CA.

Akin

Jewbali

et al. Short-term mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in refractory cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52: 14–25.doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx088

28472406

Carroll

BJ.

Shah

RV.

Murthy

et al. Clinical features and outcomes in adults with cardiogenic shock supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Am J Cardiol 2015; 116: 1624–1630.doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.08.030

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26443560

Toda

Fujita

Seguchi

et al. Role of percutaneous veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as bridge to left ventricular assist device. J Artif Organs 2018; 21: 39–45.doi:10.1007/s10047-017-0984-3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28871334

Schmitto

JD.

Molitoris

Haverich

et al. Implantation of a centrifugal pump as a left ventricular assist device through a novel, minimized approach: upper hemisternotomy combined with anterolateral thoracotomy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 143: 511–513.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.07.046

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21903225

Sileshi

Haglund

NA.

Davis

et al. In-hospital outcomes of a minimally invasive off-pump left thoracotomy approach using a centrifugal continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 107–112.doi:10.1016/j.healun.2014.09.023

25447579

Slaughter

. Implantation of the HeartWare left ventricular assist device. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 23: 245–247.doi:10.1053/j.semtcvs.2011.07.008

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22172363

Sorensen

EN.

Voorhees

HJ.

Dees

et al. Individualized antithrombotic therapy in Heartware HVAD recipients. Asaio J 2019; 65: 29–35.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000751

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29461279

10.

Kormos

RL.

Teuteberg

JJ.

Pagani

et al. Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 1316–1324.doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.11.020

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20132950

11.

Maltais

Anwer

LA.

Tchantchaleishvili

et al. Left lateral thoracotomy for centrifugal continuous-flow left ventricular assist device placement: an analysis from the mechanical circulatory support research network. Asaio J 2018; 64: 715–720.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000714

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29095733

12.

Han

JJ.

Chung

Chen

et al. Different clinical course and complications in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 (INTERMACS) patients managed with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Asaio J 2018; 64: 318–322.doi:10.1097/MAT.0000000000000674

28938306

13.

Shah

Pagani

FD.

Desai

et al. Outcomes of patients receiving temporary circulatory support before durable ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 106–112.doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.06.002

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27577033

14.

Kiernan

MS.

Grandin

EW.

Brinkley

et al. Early right ventricular assist device use in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation: incidence and risk factors from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support. Circ Heart Fail 2017; 10: e003863.doi:10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.117.003863

29021348

15.

Unsworth

Casula

RP.

Kyriacou

et al. The right ventricular annular velocity reduction caused by coronary artery bypass graft surgery occurs at the moment of pericardial incision. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 314–322.doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2009.11.013

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20152232

16.

Pasrija

Sawan

MA.

Sorensen

et al. Less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation may reduce right ventricular failure. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2019; 29: 592–598.doi:10.1093/icvts/ivz143

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31326991

17.

Mihaljevic

Gillinov

MA.

Cosgrove

. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. Multimed Man Cardiothorac Surg 2006; 2006: mmcts.2005.001131 doi:10.1510/mmcts.2005.001131

24415524

18.

Tarzia

Buratto

Gallo

et al. Implantation of the HeartWare HVAD: from full sternotomy to less invasive techniques. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 3: 535–537.doi:10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2014.08.12

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25452916

19.

Dogan

Dzemali

Wimmer-Greinecker

et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. J Heart Valve Dis 2003; 12: 76–80.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12578340

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.05 MB

0.00 MB

Less Invasive Approach to Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation May Improve Survival in High-Risk Patients

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material