Search

Caption: Two Guatemalan campesinos with a homemade mortar prepare to violently confront police. The campesinos faced eviction on September 4, 2003, from contested land they occupied in the community of [...]

BACKGROUND: Despite chronic systemic anticoagulation, advanced heart failure patients treated with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) remain at risk for pump thrombosis. Pump thrombosis may initially be suspected in the setting of clinical and biochemical evidence for intravascular hemolysis, putatively related to shear stress on red blood cells propelled through a partially occluded pump. Limited data exist to guide management in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present a series of 8 LVAD patients who presented with intravascular hemolysis secondary to pump thrombosis who were treated with intraventricular thrombolytic therapy. In 3 patients, thrombolytic therapy led to complete and lasting resolution of hemolysis, suggesting successful dissolution of pump thrombus. In the remaining 5 patients, thrombolytic therapy ultimately failed to halt or reverse pump thrombosis and hemolysis: 1 patient required emergent pump exchange, 2 patients progressed to cardiogenic shock and died, 1 patient suffered a debilitating stroke after which care was withdrawn, and 1 patient underwent cardiac transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of LVAD thrombosis, thrombolytic therapy is an alternate treatment strategy in a subset of patients. Candidacy for this alternate procedure must carefully weigh the risks of complications, including hemorrhage and thromboembolism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a study in which several innovative intersections were evaluated for their ability to maintain mainline highway service while accommodating site traffic from a planned mixed-use development. Five alternatives were examined besides a single full-movement intersection: three varieties of superstreet, a continuous flow intersection, and a multiple left-in/left-out configuration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Almost 50% of patients referred for implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) have significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Preoperative TR is associated with negative outcomes but the clinical benefit of concomitant tricuspid valve procedures has not been extensively studied. Methods: One hundred fifteen patients, undergoing implantable LVADs, were identified as having significant TR by echocardiography prior to their surgical procedure. Patients underwent either LVAD alone (n = 81) versus LVAD plus concomitant tricuspid procedures (n = 34) (29 annuloplasty ring repairs and 5 bioprosthetic replacements.) Preoperative characteristics and hemodynamics, as well as TR severity and clinical outcomes were retrospectively determined from chart and database review and compared for the two groups. Results: Preoperative characteristics and hemodynamics were similar for the two groups. Postoperative TR was markedly reduced for the group undergoing concomitant procedures versus LVAD alone. A temporary right ventricular assist device was required for only one of the 34 cases in which concomitant tricuspid procedures were performed; for patients undergoing LVAD alone, 8 of 81 required right ventricular assist devices. Mean duration of postoperative inotrope utilization was increased for the LVAD alone group versus the group with concomitant tricuspid procedures (10.0 vs 8.0 days, respectively, p = 0.04). The incidence of postoperative renal dysfunction was increased for the LVAD alone group (39%) versus concomitant procedures (21%) (p = 0.05). The LVAD alone group also had a greater mean postimplant length of hospitalization versus the concomitant procedures group (26.0 vs 19.0 days, p = 0.02). Finally, there was a trend toward improved survival for the group with concomitant tricuspid procedures versus LVAD alone. Conclusions: For patients with significant TR undergoing implantable LVAD procedures, concomitant tricuspid procedures are associated with improved early clinical outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: End-stage heart failure is a growing problem associated with a high mortality using conventional medical care. Although cardiac transplantation is an excellent treatment option, it is a limited resource and most patients are ineligible for cardiac transplantation using standard listing criteria. Increasingly, newer surgical options for these patients include the usage of marginal donor organs in an extended criteria–alternate list heart transplant program (EC-AL), or left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy (DT-LVAD). The purpose of this study was to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes after EC-AL versus DT-LVAD. Methods: From March 2000 to August 2008, 153 consecutive patients who had been turned down for standard heart transplantation underwent either EC-AL or DT-LVAD. The most common reasons for standard heart transplant ineligibility for both groups were advanced age, diabetes mellitus with end-organ dysfunction, and significant renal insufficiency. Patients in the alternate list program received a donor organ that had been turned down by all other centers for standard list recipients. The most common reasons for donor heart refusal were decreased left ventricular function, left ventricle hypertrophy, or coronary artery disease. Outcomes for both groups were retrospectively reviewed after Institutional Review Board permission was obtained. Comparisons were also made between patients that had been matched by propensity score analysis. Results: In all, 93 patients underwent EC-AL, and 60 underwent DT-LVAD. Baseline preoperative characteristics of both groups were similar except that 87% of DT-LVAD patients (52 of 60) required preoperative mechanical or inotropic support whereas only 51% of EC-AL patients (47 of 93) required support (p < 0.0001). Thirty-day operative mortality and 1-year survival were 2.5% and 82.2% for EC-AL and 6.7% and 77.5% DT-LVAD, respectively (p = 0.2411 and p = 0.5036). Overall survival at 3 years was better for EC-AL versus DT-LVAD. The DT-LVAD patients had improved survival compared with the Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial DT-LVAD cohort, a historical control. These findings were corroborated in the analysis of propensity-matched patients. Conclusions: Preoperatively, the DT-LVAD cohort was more unstable, with greater need for inotropes or mechanical support. Despite this, perioperative and 1-year mortality was similar for the two groups. Three-year survival was better for EC-AL. The DT-LVAD patient survival was better than that of the REMATCH DT-LVAD cohort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]