Search

Abstract Background Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are used for treatment of end-stage heart failure. Outcomes are dependent on right ventricle (RV) function. Prediction of RV function after LVAD implantation is crucial for device selection and patient outcome. The aim of our study was to compare early LVAD course in patients with optimal and borderline echocardiographic parameters of RV function. Material and methods We retrospectively reviewed 24 male patients with LVAD implantation. The following echocardiographic data of RV function were collected: FAC (fractional area change) with optimal value > 20%, tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion >15 mm, RV diameter < 50mm, and right-to-left ventricle ratio < 0.57 (RV/LV). Patients were divided into group 1 (12 patients) with transthoracic echocardiography parameters in optimal ranges and group 2 (12 patients) with suboptimal transthoracic echocardiography findings. Study endpoints were mortality, discharge from the intensive care unit, and RV dysfunction. Demographics, postoperative clinical outcomes, comorbidities, complications, and results in a 30-day period were analyzed between groups. Results Echocardiography parameters differed significantly between groups 1 and 2 according to FAC (31.8% vs 24.08%; P =.005), RV4 (45.08 mm vs 51.69 mm; P =.02), and RV/LV ratio (0.6 vs 0.7; P =.009). Patients did not differ according to course of disease, comorbidities before implantation, or complications. One patient from each group died. Patients in group 2 experienced more pulmonary hypertension, required increased doses of catecholamines, and stayed in the intensive care unit longer. No RV dysfunction was noted. Conclusions Borderline FAC, tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion, and RV4 add RV/LV ratio prolonged recovery after LVAD implantation even with no RV failure. Parameters chosen for qualification are in safe ranges. Highlights • Prediction of RV function for LVAD implantation is crucial for patient outcome. • We showed comparable outcome between groups of optimal and borderline RV function. • Our results with the continuous flow LVAD are encouraging; there was no RV dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limited data exist about the effects of continuous-flow versus pulsatile-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) on end-organ function. We hypothesized that a pulsatile Polvad MEV (PM) would result in outcomes similar to those of similarly ill patients implanted with a continuous-flow LVAD (Heartware [HW] or Heartmate II [HMII]). We aimed to compare renal, hepatic, and hematologic functions in the 1st 30 days of support. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with 24 PM (21 M, 3 F; group P) and 15 HW and 5 HMII (20 M, 0 F); group C LVAD implantations from April 2007 to February 2014. Creatinine, bilirubin, aspartate (AST) and alanine (ALT) transaminases, hematocrit, platelet count, international normalized ratio (INR), and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) parameters were analyzed before implantation and during 30 days of support. Demographic parameters were similar. Results No significant differences were found between the groups regarding baseline renal, hepatic, or hematologic function. Baseline INR and APTT were significantly higher in group P. Levels of creatinine were similar between groups. They increased from baseline to postoperative day (POD) 1 and then decreased. Bilirubin levels were insignificantly higher in group P. Transaminases were significantly higher in group P (AST in PODs 3–6, ALT in PODs 3–7). INR values were significantly higher at baseline and in POD 0. APTT values were insignificantly higher in group P. Conclusions The use of LVAD improved renal and hepatic function in our series. Patients in group P had more decreased hepatic function and presented slower regeneration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support is increasingly used in patients with heart failure. The right ventricle (RV) plays a main role in LVAD support. Little is known about the effects of pulsatile Polvad MEV devices or continuouseconds flow pumps on RV function. We compared hemodynamic parameters of RV in patients after implantation of Polvad MEV (PM) and Heartware (HW) or Heartmate II (HMII) LVADs. Methods Forty-four patients were retrospectively reviewed after implantation of PM (group P; n = 24 [21 M, 3 F]) or HW or HMII (group C; n = 20 [20 M, 0 F]) LVADs from April 2007 to February 2014. Hemodynamic data—mean pulmonary pressure (mPAP), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO), and cardiac index (CI)—were collected before surgery, after surgery, and every 2 hours in the intensive care unit, with the time points numbered from 1 to 120. Right ventricular work (RVW) was calculated according to the equation: RCW = CO × (mPAP − CVP) × 0.0144 (g·m). Results Baseline characteristic of the patients were similar. mPAP values were similar between groups. CVP values were higher in group P, significantly at time points 5 and 7–33. CO values were higher in group C, significantly from point 3 and almost all the time to point 43. CI reached significance at point 9, 12–14, 16–19, and 30–41. RCW was higher in group P before implantation. Post-implantation RCW values were higher in group C, significantly at time points 19, 20, 32–34, 51–53, and 55–57. Conclusions Continuous-flow pumps more effectively optimize RV function than pulsatile LVADs, which can result in more effective prevention of RV failure or insuffiency in that group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mechanical circulatory support is increasingly used in patients with heart failure as a bridge to transplant or recovery. Results of use the Polish POLVAD MEV pulsatile circulatory support system and its comparison with novel devices never was done. We compared the course of patients with left ventricular circulatory support (left ventricular assist device [LVAD]) supported by POLVAD MEV or continuous flow devices Heart Mate II (HM II) and Heart Ware (HW) in single-center cohort. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 44 patients who underwent Polvad Mev (group P; n = 24 [21M/3F]) or HW or HM II (group C; n = 20 [20M/0F]) implantation between April 2007 and February 2014. Patients were in INTERMACS 1 (6 in group P and 1 in group C) or 2. Preimplant demographics, and perioperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were reviewed between groups. We analyzed baseline signs of heart failure, comorbidities, complications, and the 30- and 90-day results. Results Among the groups, age, gender, weight, and cause of heart failure were comparable. Patients in group C suffered more frequently from hypercholesterolemia preoperatively. Patients in group P had more pulmonary complications (7 vs 0) after LVAD implantation and stay longer on intensive care unit than patients in group C (17.61 ± 16.96 vs 9.56 ± 9.42; P = .047). After exclusion, INTERMACS 1 patients it was not significant (14.8 ± 10.8 vs 9.8 ± 9.6 days; P = .065), the 30- and 90-day mortality was comparable. Conclusions Implantation of pulsatile POLVAD MEV and continuous flow devices as LVAD support provides comparable results. A greater number of complications in group P can cause increased mortality over a longer observation period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]