Left Ventricular Assist Stand-by for High-Risk Cardiac Surgery

Abstract

Background: Patients with severely impaired left-ventricular pump function who are eligible for heart transplantation increasingly undergo high-risk cardiac surgery due to the scarcity of donor organs. If these patients also qualify for long-term mechanical support, the latter can be used as back-up in case of postcardiotomy failure. Methods: Since 1994, 36 patients (34 male, 2 female; mean age 51 ± 7 years) underwent coronary bypass surgery/aneurysmectomy (n = 27), aortic valve replacement (n = 4), both (n = 1), or partial left ventriculectomy (n = 4) with a long-term mechanical assist device (Novacor, HeartMate, DeBakey) and were kept on stand-by with the device. Average left ventricular ejection fraction was 23 ± 9 %, NYHA 2.9 ± 0.5, and CCS 2.7 ± 0.9. An intraaortic balloon pump was inserted prior to surgery in 13 patients. Results: In 31 patients, high-risk surgery was performed, whereas 5 patients underwent immediate device placement as coronary revascularization was deemed impossible. 6 patients had postcardiotomy failure after coronary bypass surgery and were immediately provided with a long-term assist system. There were no significant differences in risk factors between the patient subsets. All conservatively operated patients survived and left the institution after 9.4 days and are currently at NYHA 1.5 ± 0.5 or CCS 1.0 ± 0, respectively. 6 of the 11 LVAD patients could be bridged to heart transplantation after 43 - 418 days, and 1 patient is still on support. Conclusion: High-risk conventional surgery with LVAD stand-by is feasible and seems to be a valuable alternative for heart-transplant candidates.

Key words

High-risk surgery - heart failure - mechanical support

References

• 1 Omoigui N A, Miller D P, Brown K J. et al . Outmigration for coronary bypass surgery in an era of public dissemination of clinical outcomes.  Circulation. 1996;  93 27-33
• 2 Tjan T DT, Kondruweit M, Scheld H H. et al . The bad ventricle-revascularization versus transplantation.  Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;  48 9-14
• 3 McCarthy P M, Starling R C, Young J B, Smedira N G, Goormastic M, Buda T. Left ventricular reduction surgery with mitral valve repair.  J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000;  8 (Suppl) S64-S67
• 4 Hausmann H, Topp H, Siniawski H, Holz S, Hetzer R. Decision-making in end-stage coronary artery disease: revascularization or heart transplantation?.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;  64 1296-1301discussion 1302
• 5 Bolling S F, Pagani F D, Deeb G M, Bach D S. Intermediate-term outcome of mitral reconstruction in cardiomyopathy.  J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;  115 381-388
• 6 Estafanous F G, Loop F D, Higgins T L. et al . Increased risk and decreased morbidity of coronary artery bypass grafting between 1986 and 1994.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  65 383-389
• 7 Goldstein D J, Oz M C. Mechanical support for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock.  Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;  12 220-288
• 8 Scheld H H, Hammel D, Schmid C. et al . Beating heart implantation of a wearable NOVACOR left-ventricular assist device.  Thorac cardiovasc Surgeon. 1996;  44 62-66
• 9 Milano C A, White H D, Smith L R. et al . Coronary artery bypass in patients with severely depressed ventricular function.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;  56 487-493
• 10 Schmid C, Wilhelm M, Reimann A. et al . Prophylactic use of the intra-aortic balloon pump in patients with impaired left ventricular function.  Scan Cardiovasc J. 1999;  33 194-198
• 11 Borst C, Jansen E W, Tulleken C A. et al . Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass and without interruption of native coronary flow using a novel anastomosis site restraining device (“Octopus”).  J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;  27 1356-1364
• 12 Diegeler A, Falk V, Matin M. et al . Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass: early experience and follow-up.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;  66 1022-1025
• 13 Scheld H H, Schmid C. Cardiac surgery without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass: the challenges. Curr. Op.  Anaesthesiol.. 1998;  11 5-8
• 14 Schmid C, Deng M C, Hammel D, Weyand M, Loick H M, Scheld H H. Emergency versus elective/urgent LVAD implantation.  J Heart Lung Transplant. 1998;  17 1024-1028
• 15 Quaini E, Pavie A, Chieco S, Mambrito B. The Concerted Action ‘Heart’ European registry on clinical application of mechanical circulatory support systems: bridge to transplant. The Registry Scientific Committee.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;  11 182-188
• 16 Smedira N G, Blackstone E H. Postcardiotomy mechanical support: risk factors and outcomes.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;  71 S60-S66
• 17 Mehta M S, Aufiero T X, Pae W E, Miller C A, Pierce W S. Combined registry for the clinical use of mechanical ventricular assist pumps and the total artifical heart in conjunction with heart transplantation: sixth official report 1994.  J Heart Lung Transplant. 1995;  14 585-593
• 18 Bowen F W, Carboni A F, O'Hara M L. et al . Application of “double bridge mechanical” resuscitation for profound cardiogenic shock leading to cardiac transplantation.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;  72 86-90
• 19 Pagani F D, Lynch W, Swaniker F. et al . Extracorporeal life support to left ventricular assist device bridge to heart transplant: A strategy of optimize survival and resource utilization.  Circulation. 1999;  100 (Suppl 19) II206-II210
• 20 Helman D N, Morales D L, Edwards N M. et al . Left ventricular assist device bridge-to-transplant network improves survival after failed cardiotomy.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;  68 1187-1194