Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Rossano, Joseph W.
• VanderPluym, Christina J.
• Peng, David M.
• Hollander, Seth A.
• Maeda, Katsuhide
• Adachi, Iki
• Davies, Ryan R.
• Simpson, Kathleen E.
• Fynn-Thompson, Francis
• Conway, Jennifer
• Law, Sabrina P.
• Cantor, Ryan S.
• Koehl, Devin
• Jacobs, Jeffrey P.
• Amdani, Shahnawaz
• Kirklin, James K.
• Morales, David L.S.

Titel

Fifth Annual Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) Report

Ist Teil von

• The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2021-12, Vol.112 (6), p.1763-1774

Ort / Verlag

Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Quelle

EZB Electronic Journals Library

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The Pediatric Interagency Registry for Mechanical Circulatory Support (Pedimacs) provides detailed information on pediatric patients supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs). From September 19, 2012, to December 31, 2020, 1229 devices in 1011 patients were reported to the registry from 47 North American Hospitals in patients aged younger than 19 years. Cardiomyopathy was the most common underlying etiology (58%), followed by congenital heart disease (CHD; 25%) and myocarditis (10%). The most common devices implanted were implantable continuous (IC; 419 [41%]), followed by paracorporeal pulsatile (PP; 269 [27%]), paracorporeal continuous (PC; 263 [26%]), and percutaneous (53 [5%]). Overall, at 6 months after VAD implantation, 83% had a positive outcome (transplant, explant, or alive on device). The freedom from stroke at 3 months was highest in IC VADs (93%), compared with PP VADs (84%) and with PC VADs (75%). There were differences in survival by device type, with patients on IC VADs having the best overall survival and those on PC having the lowest overall survival, though the patient populations being supported by each VAD type differed significantly from each other. This Fifth Pedimacs Report demonstrates the continued robust growth of VADs in the pediatric community, now with more than 1000 patients reported to the registry. The multiple available device types (PC, PP, IC) serve different populations with different pre-VAD risk profiles, which may account for differences in survival and adverse events between device types.