RSS-Feed abonnieren
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782600
Temporal Analysis in Outcomes of Long-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: Retrospective Study
Abstract
Background Mechanical assist device indications have changed in recent years. Reduced incidence of complications, better survival, and the third generation of mechanical support devices contributed to this change. In this single-center study, we focused on two time periods that are characterized by the use of different types of mechanical support devices, different patient characteristics, and change in the indications.
Methods The data were processed from the European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support (EUROMACS). We retrospectively defined two time intervals to reflect changes in ventricular assist device technology (period 1: 2007–2015; period 2: 2016–20222). A total of 181 patients underwent left ventricular assist device implantation. Device utilization was the following: HeartMate II = 52 (76.4%) and HeartWare = 16 (23.6%) in period 1 and HeartMate II = 2 (1.8%), HeartMate 3 = 70 (61:9%), HeartWare = 29 (25.7%), SynCardia TAH = 10 (8.8%), and BerlinHeart EXCOR = 2 (1.8%) in period 2. The outcomes of the time intervals were analyzed and evaluated.
Results Survival was significantly higher during the second time period. Multivariate analysis revealed that age and bypass pump time are independent predictors of mortality. Idiopathic cardiomyopathy, bypass time, and the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) score are independent predictors of adverse events. Furthermore, the first period was noted to be at an increased risk of the following adverse events: pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding, and bleeding events.
Conclusion Despite the higher risk profile of the patients and persistent challenges, during the second period, there was a significant decrease in mortality and morbidity. The use of the HeartMate 3 device may have contributed to this result.
Authors' Contribution
E.G. and P.L. were added as co-authors during the revision process. Both of them had a significant contribution in the preparation of the revised manuscript. The individual contributions were the following: P.L. contributed to the drafting and writing part of the revised manuscript. E.G. contributed to the drafting and writing part of the revised manuscript, and supervision.
Publikationsverlauf
Eingereicht: 16. Oktober 2023
Angenommen: 12. Februar 2024
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. April 2024
© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Toro S, Patel K, Guha A. Destination LVAD therapy in the current era of the heart transplant allocation system. Curr Opin Cardiol 2023; 38 (03) 275-279
- 2 Molina EJ, Shah P, Kiernan MS. et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons INTERMACS 2020 Annual Report. Ann Thorac Surg 2021; 111 (03) 778-792
- 3 Goncalvesova E a kolektiv. Manual diagnostických indikačných a liečebných postupov. Účelová publikácia NUSCH, a.s. Herba; 2022
- 4 McElreath R. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton, FL:: CRC Press;; 2016: 189
- 5 Varshney AS, DeFilippis EM, Cowger JA, Netuka I, Pinney SP, Givertz MM. Trends and outcomes of left ventricular assist device therapy: JACC focus seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022; 79 (11) 1092-1107
- 6 Mehra MR, Nayak A, Morris AA. et al. Prediction of survival after implantation of a fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist devive. JACC Heart Fail 2022; 10 (12) 948-959
- 7 Yuzefpolskaya M, Schroeder SE, Houston BA. et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons INTERMACS 2022 annual report:Focus on the 2018 heart transplant allocation system. Ann Thorac Surg 2023; 115 (02) 311-327
- 8 Caraballo C, DeFilippis EM, Nakagawa S. et al. Clinical outcomes after left ventricular assist device implantation in older adults. An INTERMACS analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2019; 7 (12) 1069-1078
- 9 Sandner SE, Zimpfer D, Zrunek P. et al. Age and outcome after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation as bridge to transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2009; 28 (04) 367-372
- 10 Zhigalov K, Van den Eynde J, Chrosch T. et al. Outcomes of left ventricular assist device implantation for advanced heart failure in critically ill patients (INTERMACS 1 and 2): a retrospective study. Artif Organs 2021; 45 (07) 706-716
- 11 Merkle-Storms J, Djordjevic I, Sabashnikov A. et al. Comparative analysis of LVAD patients in regard of ischaemic or idiopathic cardiomyopathy: A propensity-score analysis of EUROMACS data. Int J Artif Organs 2022; 45 (03) 284-291
- 12 de By TMMH, Schoenrath F, Veen KM. et al. The European registry for patients with mechanical circulatory support of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery: third report. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2022; 62 (01) ezac032
- 13 Kremer J, Meinert EFRC, Farag M. et al. New wound management of driveline infections with cold atmospheric plasma. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis 2022; 9 (11) 405
- 14 Pya Y, Maly J, Bekbossynova M. et al. First human use of a wireless coplanar energy transfer coupled with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant 2019; 38 (04) 339-343
- 15 Jennings DL, Weeks PA. Thrombosis in continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: pathophysiology, prevention, and pharmacologic management. Pharmacotherapy 2015; 35 (01) 79-98
- 16 Gurbel PA, Shah P, Desai S, Tantry US. Antithrombotic strategies and device thrombosis. Cardiol Clin 2018; 36 (04) 541-550
- 17 Potapov EV, Nersesian G, Lewin D. et al. Propensity score-based analysis of long-term follow-up in patients supported with durable centrifugal left ventricular assist devices: the EUROMACS analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2021; 60 (03) 579-587
- 18 Sidhu K, Lam PH, Mehra MR. Evolving trends in mechanical circulatory support: clinical development of a fully magnetically levitated durable ventricular assist device. Trends Cardiovasc Med 2020; 30 (04) 223-229
- 19 Mehra MR, Uriel N, Naka Y. et al; MOMENTUM 3 Investigators. A fully magnetically levitated left ventricular assist device: final report. N Engl J Med 2019; 380 (17) 1618-1627
- 20 Mehra MR, Goldstein DJ, Cleveland JC. et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with fully magnetically levitated vs axial-flow left ventricular assist devices in the MOMENTUM 3 randomized trial. JAMA 2022; 328 (12) 1233-1242
- 21 Maltais S, Anwer LA, Haglund NA. et al. Temporal differences in outcomes during long-term mechanical circulatory support. J Card Fail 2017; 23 (12) 852-858
- 22 Al-Naamani A, Fahr F, Khan A. et al. Minimally invasive ventricular assist device implantation. J Thorac Dis 2021; 13 (03) 2010-2017
- 23 Ricklefs M, Hanke JS, Dogan G. et al. Less invasive surgical approach for LVAD implantation. Semin Thoracic Surg 2018; 30 (01) 1-6
- 24 Loyaga-Rendon RY, Kazui T, Acharya D. Antiplatelet and anticoagulation strategies for left ventricular assist devices. Ann Transl Med 2021; 9 (06) 521
- 25 Shoskes A, Fan TH, Starling RC, Cho S-M. Neurologic complications in patients with left ventricular assist devices. Can J Cardiol 2023; 39 (02) 210-221
- 26 Beavers CJ, Ambrosy AP, Butler J. et al. Iron deficiency in heart failure: a scientific statement from the heart failure society of America. J Card Fail 2023; 29 (07) 1059-1077
- 27 Busa V, Dardeir A, Marudhai S. et al. Role of vitamin D supplementation in heart failure patients with vitamin D deficiency and its effect on clinical outcomes: a literature review. Cureus 2020; 12 (10) e10840
- 28 Ono M, Yamaguchi O, Ohtani T. et al. JCS/JSCVS/JATS/JSVS 2021 Guideline on implantable assist device for patients with advance heart failure. Circ J 2022; 86: 1024-1058
- 29 Uriel N, Burkhoff D, Rich JD. et al. Impact of hemodynamic ramp test-guided HVAD speed and medication adjustments on clinical outcome. The RAMP-IT-UP multicenter study. Circ Heart Fail 2019; 12: e006067