Search

Objective: Recent reports on ischemic mitral valve (MV) regurgitation surgical strategies have suggested better hemodynamic performance with MV replacement (MVR) than MV repair (MVr) with no survival difference at 2 years. We evaluated the difference between MVR and MVr outcomes in patients with ischemic MR, including hemodynamic MV performance at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Methods: A single center cardiac surgery database was queried for patients (aged >/ = 18 years) requiring mitral valve surgery with concomitant CABG or PCI between January 2010 and June 2018. Patients were separated into two groups: mitral valve repair using ring annuloplasty (MVr) and mitral valve replacement (MVR). Results: A total of 111 patients (median age 66 years, 76% male) underwent an operation for ischemic mitral regurgitation during the study period. (44%) had MVr and 62 (56%) had MVR. Both groups had > 80% concomitant CABG. The MVr group had lower EF (40% vs. 55%, p < 0.01), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (117 vs. 164 minutes, p <.01) and shorter aortic cross-clamp time (80 vs. 116 minutes, p <.01). The in-hospital mortality (6% vs. 10%, p = 1.00) and 1-year mortality (14% vs. 18%, p = 0.17) were similar between the groups. Pre-operative left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole was greater in the MVr group (5.6cm vs. 4.6cm, p <.01). At 1-year, more patients in the MVR group had no or trace regurgitation (29% vs. 61%, p = 0.01), however, the number of patients with moderate or greater mitral regurgitation was similar (6% vs. 12%, p = 0.69). At 2-years, the MVr and MVR groups had no difference in moderate or severe mitral regurgitation (7% vs. 13%, p = 0.68). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate similar early mortality and mid-term mitral valve performance, suggesting that MV repair could be a good surgical option in patients with ischemic MR requiring surgical revascularization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the clinical characteristics, risk factors, and overall survival outcomes in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) bridged to transplantation with a ventricular assist device (VAD) versus no‐VAD. Methods: The study included 894 ACHD patients aged ≥18 years listed for primary heart transplantation between 2010 and 2019 from the United Network for Organ Sharing database. Primary outcomes were waitlist and 1‐year post‐transplant mortality between VAD and no‐VAD ACHD patients. Results: Of 894 ACHD patients included in the study, 91(10.1%) had VAD support at the time of listing. Patients who needed VAD support were mostly males, heavier, and had higher pulmonary artery pressure than the no‐VAD group at the listing. The overall waitlist mortality was 38% in the VAD group than 17% in the no‐VAD group (p < 0.01). ECMO use was associated with significantly higher mortality than either group. There was no significant difference in 1‐year post‐transplant mortality between VAD versus no‐VAD at the time of transplant (15% vs. 17%; p = 0.66). Multivariate regression analysis found that BMI <20 kg/m2 (hazard ratio (HR) 1.1; p = 0.01), bilirubin >2 mg/dl (HR 1.1; p = 0.03), creatinine >2 mg/dl (HR 1.3; p = 0.04) and ECMO at transplant (HR 1.4; p = 0.03) increased early post‐transplant mortality. Conclusions: The one‐year post‐transplant mortality rate was no different for ACHD patients that received VAD versus no‐VAD. These findings suggest that a VAD should be considered an option to support ACHD patients as a bridge to heart transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Use of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has increased over the years as a bridge to transplant. The HeartWare HVAD (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) and HeartMate III (HM3, Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) are currently approved centrifugal-flow devices used for bridge to transplant. We sought to evaluate outcomes of the patients listed and who received a transplant after receiving these 2 devices. The United Network of Organ Sharing thoracic transplant database was queried after August 23, 2017, until December 2018 to identify patients aged older than 18 years listed for heart transplant and supported by the HVAD or HM3. Patient characteristics were evaluated at the time of listing and transplant. The primary study end point was 1-year mortality after LVAD implantation. Nonparametric tests were used to evaluate the device groups. Of 569 patients listed for heart transplant during the study period, 226 had HM3 and 343 had HVAD. The HM3 group had more men (82% vs 74%, P =.02), patients with diabetes (38% vs 29%, P =.02), and the body mass index was higher (28 vs 27 kg/m2, P =.04) at listing. Between the HM3 and HVAD groups, the 1-year mortality was 20% vs 17%, respectively (log-rank P =.28; Figure 1), and the posttransplant survival at 1 year was 97% and 94%, respectively (P =.1). In a relatively well-matched group of patients listed for heart transplant with a centrifugal-flow LVAD, the 6-month and 1-year mortality on the waiting list as well as after transplant were not statistically different. Additional real-world experience or a randomized trial would be needed to determine whether one LVAD is superior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]