Search

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of concomitant mitral valve surgery for significant preexisting mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation. Electronic search was performed to identify all studies in the English literature examining concurrent mitral valve surgery in patients with CF-LVAD implantation. Identified articles were systematically assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of 2319 studies identified, 8 studies were included. Among 445 patients with moderate to severe or severe MR, 113 (25.4%) patients received concurrent mitral valvular intervention during CF-LVAD implantation. There were no significant differences in cardiopulmonary bypass time (MR Surgery 154 min vs. no MR Surgery 119 min, P = 0.64) or hospital length of stay (MR Surgery 21 days vs. no MR Surgery 18 days, P = 0.93). On follow-up, there were no significant differences in freedom from greater than moderate MR (MR Surgery 100% vs. no MR Surgery 74%, P = 0.12) or left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (MR Surgery: 60 mm vs. no MR Surgery 65 mm, P = 0.51). Survival was comparable at 6-months (MR Surgery 77% vs. no MR Surgery 81%, P = 0.75), 1-year (MR Surgery 72% vs. no MR Surgery 80%, P = 0.36), and 2-years of follow-up (MR Surgery 65% vs. no MR Surgery 70%, P = 0.56). The results of our systematic review and meta-analysis of 8 studies consisting of 445 patients demonstrates that the addition of mitral valve intervention to CF-LVAD implantation appears to be safe with comparable survival to those undergoing CF-LVAD implantation alone. Large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to elucidate whether concomitant mitral valve intervention during CF-LVAD implantation in patients with severe MR is necessary.

Infection remains the Achilles heel of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy. However, an optimal antimicrobial surgical infection prophylaxis (SIP) regimen has not been established. This study evaluated the efficacy of a single-drug SIP compared to a multi-drug SIP on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing continuous-flow LVAD (CF-LVAD) and pulsatile LVAD (P-LVAD) implantation. An electronic search was performed to identify studies in the English literature on SIP regimens in patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Identified articles were assessed for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fourteen articles with 1,311 (CF-LVAD: 888; P-LVAD: 423) patients were analyzed. Overall, 501 (38.0%) patients received single-drug SIP, whereas 810 (62.0%) received multi-drug SIP. Time to infection was comparable between groups. There was no significant difference in overall incidence of LVAD-specific infections [single-drug: 18.7% vs. multi-drug: 24.8%, P = 0.49] including driveline infections [single-drug: 14.1% vs. multi-drug: 20.8%, P = 0.37]. Compared to single-drug SIP, patients who received multi-drug SIP had a significantly lower survival rate [single-drug: 90.0% vs. multi-drug: 76.0%, P = 0.01] and infection-free survival rate [single-drug: 88.4% vs. multi-drug: 77.3%, P = 0.04] at 90 days. However, there were no significant differences in 1-year survival and 1-year infection-free survival between groups. No survival differences were observed in the CF-LVAD subset as well. This study demonstrated no additional advantage of a multi-drug compared to a single-drug regimen for SIP. Although there was a modest advantage in early survival among CF-LVAD and P-LVAD patients who received single-drug SIP, there were no significant differences in the 1-year survival and 1-year infection-free survival.