Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Fitzpatrick, J. Raymond, MD
• Frederick, John R., MD
• Hiesinger, William, MD
• Hsu, Vivian M., MD
• McCormick, Ryan C., BS
• Kozin, Elliott D., BA
• Laporte, Carine M., BA
• O'Hara, Mary Lou, MSN
• Howell, Elan, BSN
• Dougherty, Deborah, BSN
• Cohen, Jeffrey E., BA
• Southerland, Kevin W., BS
• Howard, Jessica L., BS
• Paulson, E. Carter, MD, MSCE
• Acker, Michael A., MD
• Morris, Rohinton J., MD
• Woo, Y. Joseph, MD

Titel

Early planned institution of biventricular mechanical circulatory support results in improved outcomes compared with delayed conversion of a left ventricular assist device to a biventricular assist device

Ist Teil von

• The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2009-04, Vol.137 (4), p.971-977

Ort / Verlag

New York, NY: Mosby, Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2009

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objective It is generally accepted that patients who require biventricular assist device support have poorer outcomes than those requiring isolated left ventricular assist device support. However, it is unknown how the timing of biventricular assist device insertion affects outcomes. We hypothesized that planned biventricular assist device insertion improves survival compared with delayed conversion of left ventricular assist device support to biventricular assist device support. Methods We reviewed and compared outcomes of 266 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device or biventricular assist device placement at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1995 to June 2007. We subdivided patients receiving biventricular assist devices into planned biventricular assist device (P-BiVAD) and delayed biventricular assist device (D-BiVAD) groups based on the timing of right ventricular assist device insertion. We defined the D-BiVAD group as any failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support. Results Of 266 patients who receivd left ventricular assist devices, 99 (37%) required biventricular assist device support. We compared preoperative characteristics, successful bridging to transplantation, survival to hospital discharge, and Kaplan–Meier 1-year survival between the P-BiVAD (n = 71) and D-BiVAD (n = 28) groups. Preoperative comparison showed that patients who ultimately require biventricular support have similar preoperative status. Left ventricular assist device (n = 167) outcomes in all categories exceeded both P-BiVAD and D-BiVAD group outcomes. Furthermore, patients in the P-BiVAD group had superior survival to discharge than patients in the D-BiVAD group (51% vs 29%, P < .05). One-year and long-term Kaplan–Meier survival distribution confirmed this finding. There was also a trend toward improved bridging to transplantation in the P-BiVAD (n = 55) versus D-BiVAD (n = 22) groups (65% vs 45%, P = .10). Conclusion When patients at high risk for failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support are identified, proceeding directly to biventricular assist device implantation is advised because early institution of biventricular support results in dramatic improvement in survival.