Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

We have observed that minimally invasive left ventricular assist device (LVAD) insertion leads to more facile re-entry and easier cardiac transplantation. We hypothesize minimally invasive LVAD implantation results in improved outcomes at the time of subsequent heart transplant.

Methods

All adults undergoing cardiac transplantation between October 2015 and March 2019 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Those bridged to transplantation with a HeartWare HVAD were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based upon the surgical approach: those who underwent HVAD placement by conventional sternotomy versus minimally invasive insertion via lateral thoracotomy and hemisternotomy (LTHS). Patient demographics, as well as perioperative transplant outcomes, including survival, length of stay (LOS), blood utilization, ischemic time, bypass time, and postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were compared between cohorts.

Results

Forty-two patients were bridged to heart transplant with a HVAD implanted via either sternotomy (n = 22) or LTHS technique (n = 20). Demographics were similar between groups. There was 1 predischarge death in the sternotomy group and none in the LTHS group. Body surface area, cardiopulmonary bypass time, ischemic time, ECMO utilization, and reoperation for bleeding were similar. Red blood cell units transfused were significantly lower in the LTHS cohort (3.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 6.0 [2.5-10.0] P = 0.046). The LTHS cohort had a significantly shorter hospital LOS (12.0 [11.0-28.0] vs 22.5 [15.7-41.7] P = 0.022) with a trend toward shorter intensive care unit LOS (6.0 [5.0-10.5] vs 11.0 [6.0-21.5] days P = 0.057).

Conclusions

Minimally invasive HVAD implantation improves outcomes at subsequent heart transplantation, resulting in shorter LOS and less red cell transfusion. Larger multi-institutional studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Keywords

ventricular assist device minimally invasive transplant length of stay transfusion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Rose

EA.

Gelijns

AC.

Moskowitz

et al. Long-term use of a left ventricular assist device for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1435–1443.11794191

Rogers

JG.

Aaronson

KD.

Boyle

et al. Continuous flow left ventricular assist device improves functional capacity and quality of life of advanced heart failure patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 1826–1834.20413033

Klovaite

Gustafsson

Mortensen

et al. Severely impaired von Willebrand factor-dependent platelet aggregation in patients with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II). J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 2162–2167.19497443

Muslem

Caliskan

Leebeek

FWG

. Acquired coagulopathy in patients with left ventricular assist devices. J Thromb Haemost 2018; 16: 429–440.29274191

Scornik

JC.

Meier-Kriesche

H-U

. Blood transfusions in organ transplant patients: mechanisms of sensitization and implications for prevention. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 1785–1791.21883910

Avtaar Singh

SS.

Banner

NR.

Rushton

et al. ISHLT primary graft dysfunction incidence, risk factors, and outcome: a UK national study. Transplantation 2019; 103: 336–343.29757910

Truby

LK.

Takeda

Topkara

et al. Risk of severe primary graft dysfunction in patients bridged to heart transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018; 37: 1433–1442.30206023

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: 511–513.21903225

Popov

AF.

Hosseini

MT.

Zych

et al. HeartWare left ventricular assist device implantation through bilateral anterior thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 674–676.22269746

10.

Gosev

Wood

Ayers

et al. Implantation of a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device using a sternal-sparing surgical technique. J Heart Lung Transplant 2020; 39: 37–44.31636043

11.

Deuse

Reichenspurner

. Do not touch the sternum–thoracotomy incisions for HVAD implantation. ASAIO J 2014; 60: 234–236.24399059

12.

Khalpey

Sydow

Slepian

et al. How to do it: thoracoscopic left ventricular assist device implantation using robot assistance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 1423–1425.24630216

13.

McGee

Danter

Strueber

et al. Evaluation of a lateral thoracotomy implant approach for a centrifugal-flow left ventricular assist device: the LATERAL clinical trial. J Heart Lung Transplant 2019; 38: 344–351.30945636

14.

Pasrija

Sawan

MA.

Sorensen

et al. Less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation may reduce right ventricular failure. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2019; 29: 592–598.31326991

15.

Wert

Chatterjee

Dogan

et al. Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10(Suppl 15): S1696–S1702.30034841

16.

Ziegler

LA.

Bittle

GJ.

Klass

et al. A minimally invasive approach to left ventricular assist device insertion facilitates subsequent explant. Innovations 2021; 16: 104–107.33205685

17.

SJ.

Chung

CR.

Cho

et al. Vasoactive inotropic score as a predictor of mortality in adult patients with cardiogenic shock: medical therapy versus ECMO. Rev Esp Cardiol 2019; 72: 40–47.29463462

18.

Axtell

AL.

Fiedler

AG.

Lewis

et al. Reoperative sternotomy is associated with increased early mortality after cardiac transplantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019; 55: 1136–1143.30649307

19.

Takeda

Takayama

Kalesan

et al. Outcome of cardiac transplantation in patients requiring prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 89–99.25444372

20.

Truby

LK.

Farr

MA.

Garan

et al. Impact of bridge to transplantation with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices on posttransplantation mortality: a propensity-matched analysis of the United Network of Organ Sharing database. Circulation 2019; 140: 459–469.

21.

Fukuhara

Takeda

Polanco

et al. Prolonged continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support and posttransplantation outcomes: a new challenge. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016; 151: 872–880.26896362

22.

Immohr

MB.

Mehdiani

Albert

et al. Heart transplantation in patients with ventricular assist devices: impacts of the implantation technique and support duration. J Card Surg 2020; 35: 352–359.31803977

23.

Witman

MAH.

Garten

RS.

Gifford

et al. Further peripheral vascular dysfunction in heart failure patients with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: the role of pulsatility. JACC Heart Fail 2015; 3: 703–711.26277768

24.

Cogswell

John

Estep

et al. An early investigation of outcomes with the new 2018 donor heart allocation system in the United States. J Heart Lung Transplant 2020; 39: 1–4.31810767

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.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB

Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Insertion Facilitates Subsequent Heart Transplant

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material