Right ventricular load adaptability metrics in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation.

left ventricular assist device load-adaptation coupling outcomes right heart failure

Journal

The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-685X
Titre abrégé: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376343

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Historique:
received: 19 04 2018
revised: 31 07 2018
accepted: 10 08 2018
pubmed: 30 11 2018
medline: 30 11 2018
entrez: 29 11 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Several right load adaptability metrics have been proposed as predictors of right heart failure (RHF) following left ventricular assist device implantation. This study sought to validate and compare the prognostic value of these indices. This retrospective study included 194 patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. The primary end point was unplanned right atrial assist device (RVAD) need within 30 days after left ventricular assist device implantation; the secondary end points included clinical RHF syndrome without RVAD need and the composite of RHF or RVAD need. Load adaptability indices or interventricular ratios were divided into surrogates of ventriculoarterial coupling (RV area change:end-systolic area), indices reflecting adaptation proportionality (Dandel's index = tricuspid regurgitation velocity-time integral normalized for average RV radius in diastole or systole), and simple ratios (eg, pulse pressure:right atrial pressure or right arterial pressure:pulmonary arterial wedge pressure). Mean age was 55 ± 13 years with 77% of men. RHF occurred in 75 patients with 30 patients requiring RVAD implantation. Among right heart metrics, right arterial pressure (normalized odd ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.38), right arterial pressure:pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (normalized odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-2.32) and pulse pressure:right arterial pressure < 2.0 (normalized odds ratio, 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-5.56) were associated with RVAD need (all P values < .02). These 3 metrics significantly added incremental prognostic value to the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support classification score in a similar range, whereas only RAP was incremental to the Michigan score. Correlates of RHF not requiring RVAD included RV end-systolic area index and the Dandel indices, which provided similar incremental value to the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support, Michigan, and European Registry for Patients with Mechanical Circulatory Support scores. Although associated with outcome, right load adaptability indices do not appear to provide strong incremental value when compared with simple metrics.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30482529
pii: S0022-5223(18)32490-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.08.095
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1023-1033.e4

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Myriam Amsallem (M)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Research and Innovation Unit, INSERM U999, DHU TORINO, Paris Sud University, Marie Lannelongue Hospital, Le Plessis Robinson, France. Electronic address: mamsalle@stanford.edu.

Marie Aymami (M)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Division of Cardiac, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Rennes, Rennes, France.

William Hiesinger (W)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Sanford Zeigler (S)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Kegan Moneghetti (K)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Michael Marques (M)

Division of Anesthesiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Jeffrey Teuteberg (J)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Richard Ha (R)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Dipanjan Banerjee (D)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

François Haddad (F)

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif; Stanford Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Classifications MeSH