These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Outcomes after implantation of 139 full-support continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to transplantation.
    Author: Sabashnikov A, Mohite PN, Weymann A, Patil NP, Hedger M, Sáez DG, Zych B, Wahlers T, Wippermann J, De Robertis F, Bahrami T, Amrani M, Simon AR, Popov AF.
    Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2014 Nov; 46(5):e59-66. PubMed ID: 25180072.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are a routine treatment for patients with advanced heart failure as a bridge to transplantation. The aim of this study was to present our institutional experience and mid-term outcomes after implantation of 139 continuous-flow (cf) LVADs as a bridge to transplantation. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-nine consecutive LVAD implantations were performed in our institution between July 2007 and August 2013. The mean age of the population was 44.0 ± 13.7 years and 24 (17%) of the patients were female. A substantial number of the patients were on preoperative mechanical support: 35 (25%) with an intra-aortic balloon pump, 9 (6.5%) with an extracorporeal membrane oxygenator and 25 (18%) with previous LVAD, for LVAD exchange. RESULTS: The mean support duration was 514 ± 481 days, whereas the longest support duration was 2493 days (>6 years). The overall cumulative survival rate following cfLVAD implantation was 89% at 30 days, 76% at 1 year and 66% at 2 years (Fig. 1). There was a statistically significant difference in survival in favour of first LVAD implantation compared with VAD exchange: 91 vs 80% at 30 days, 79 vs 57% at 1 year and 70 vs 43% at 2 years (log-rank P = 0.010). Postoperatively, patients had a significant improvement in end-organ function 1 month after LVAD implantation. In addition, comparison of two different devices [HeartMate II (HM II) and HeartWare] using propensity score matching showed no significant differences in survival and most postoperative adverse events. However, patients supported with HM II required significantly more units of fresh frozen plasma (P = 0.020) with a trend towards a higher use of red blood cells (P = 0.094), and were also more likely to develop percutaneous site infections (P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: HM II and HeartWare cfLVADs have excellent early postoperative outcomes and good mid-term survival, despite a considerable number of patients needing VAD exchange.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]