Influence of implantation strategy in the transition from temporary left ventricular assist device to durable mechanical circulatory support.

Cardiogenic shock LVAD cardiopulmonary bypass outcome temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device

Journal

European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery
ISSN: 1873-734X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8804069

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Sep 2024
Historique:
received: 29 09 2023
revised: 06 03 2024
accepted: 09 09 2024
medline: 11 9 2024
pubmed: 11 9 2024
entrez: 11 9 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Bridging from temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device (tLVAD) to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) is playing an increasing role in the treatment of terminally ill heart failure patients. Scant data exits about the best implantation strategy. The aim of this study is to analyze differences in dLVAD implantation technique and effects on patient outcomes. Data from 341 patients (19 European centers), between 01/2017 and 10/2022, who underwent bridge to bridge implantation from tLVAD to dLVAD were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of the different implantation techniques on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), extracorporeal life support (ECLS) or tLVAD were compared. Durable LVAD implantation was performed employing CPB in 70% of cases (n = 238, group 1), ECLS in 11% (n = 38, group 2) and tLVAD in 19% (n = 65, group 3).Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences in age (p = 0.140), BMI (p = 0.388), creatinine (p = 0.659), Meld score (p = 0.190) and rate of dialysis (p = 0.110). Group 3 had significantly less patients with preoperatively invasive ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before tLVAD implantation (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001 respectively). Concomitant procedures were performed more often in group 1 and 2 compared to group 3 (24%, 37% and 5%, respectively, p < 0.001).The 30-day mortality showed a significant better survival after inverse probability of treatment weighting in group 3, but the 1-year mortality showed no significant differences between groups (p = 0.012 and 0.581, respectively).Post-operative complications like rate of RVAD implantation or re-thoracotomy due to bleeding, post-operative respiratory failure and renal replacement therapy showed no significant differences between groups.Freedom from first adverse event like stroke, driveline infection or pump thrombosis during follow-up was not significantly different between groups.Post-operative blood transfusion within 24-hours were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to surgery on tLVAD support (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). In our analysis, the transition from tLVAD to dLVAD without further circulatory support did not show a difference in post-operative long-term survival, but a better 30-day survival was reported. The implantation by using only tLVAD showed a reduction in post-operative transfusion rates, right heart failure and the re-thoracotomy rate without increasing the risk of postoperative stroke or pump thrombosis. In this small cohort study, our data supports the hypothesis that we could demonstrate dLVAD implantation on tLVAD is a safe and feasible technique in selected patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Bridging from temporary microaxial left ventricular assist device (tLVAD) to durable left ventricular assist device (dLVAD) is playing an increasing role in the treatment of terminally ill heart failure patients. Scant data exits about the best implantation strategy. The aim of this study is to analyze differences in dLVAD implantation technique and effects on patient outcomes.
METHODS METHODS
Data from 341 patients (19 European centers), between 01/2017 and 10/2022, who underwent bridge to bridge implantation from tLVAD to dLVAD were retrospectively analyzed. The outcomes of the different implantation techniques on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), extracorporeal life support (ECLS) or tLVAD were compared.
RESULTS RESULTS
Durable LVAD implantation was performed employing CPB in 70% of cases (n = 238, group 1), ECLS in 11% (n = 38, group 2) and tLVAD in 19% (n = 65, group 3).Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences in age (p = 0.140), BMI (p = 0.388), creatinine (p = 0.659), Meld score (p = 0.190) and rate of dialysis (p = 0.110). Group 3 had significantly less patients with preoperatively invasive ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation before tLVAD implantation (p = 0.009 and p < 0.001 respectively). Concomitant procedures were performed more often in group 1 and 2 compared to group 3 (24%, 37% and 5%, respectively, p < 0.001).The 30-day mortality showed a significant better survival after inverse probability of treatment weighting in group 3, but the 1-year mortality showed no significant differences between groups (p = 0.012 and 0.581, respectively).Post-operative complications like rate of RVAD implantation or re-thoracotomy due to bleeding, post-operative respiratory failure and renal replacement therapy showed no significant differences between groups.Freedom from first adverse event like stroke, driveline infection or pump thrombosis during follow-up was not significantly different between groups.Post-operative blood transfusion within 24-hours were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to surgery on tLVAD support (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
In our analysis, the transition from tLVAD to dLVAD without further circulatory support did not show a difference in post-operative long-term survival, but a better 30-day survival was reported. The implantation by using only tLVAD showed a reduction in post-operative transfusion rates, right heart failure and the re-thoracotomy rate without increasing the risk of postoperative stroke or pump thrombosis. In this small cohort study, our data supports the hypothesis that we could demonstrate dLVAD implantation on tLVAD is a safe and feasible technique in selected patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39259187
pii: 7755046
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae333
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

A L Meyer (AL)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

D Lewin (D)

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité (DHZC), Berlin, Germany.

M Billion (M)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Schüchtermann Clinic, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany.

S Hofmann (S)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Schüchtermann Clinic, Bad Rothenfelde, Germany.

I Netuka (I)

Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.

J Belohlavek (J)

Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic.
Second Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiovascular Medicine, General Teaching Hospital and 1st Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

K Jawad (K)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.

D Saeed (D)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Leipzig Heart Center, Leipzig, Germany.

B Schmack (B)

Hanover Medical School, Hanover, Germany.

V Rojas Hernandez (V)

Heart and Diabetes Center, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

J Gummert (J)

Heart and Diabetes Center, North Rhine-Westphalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.

A Bernhardt (A)

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Heart Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

G Färber (G)

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.

J Kooij (J)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Saarland University Medical Center and Saarland University Homburg/Saar, Homburg, Germany.

B Meyns (B)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Saarland University Medical Center and Saarland University Homburg/Saar, Homburg, Germany.

A Loforte (A)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, St Orsola University Hospital, Bologna, Italy.
University of Turin, Department of Surgical Sciences, Turin, Italy.

M Pieri (M)

Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

A M Scandroglio (AM)

Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

P Akhyari (P)

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital RTWH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

M K Szymanski (MK)

Department of Cardiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

C J H Moeller (CJH)

Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

F Gustafsson (F)

Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

M Medina (M)

Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

M Oezkur (M)

Department of Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

D Zimpfer (D)

Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

I Krasivskyi (I)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center Bonn, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.

I Djordjevic (I)

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

A Haneya (A)

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.

J Stein (J)

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité (DHZC), Berlin, Germany.

P Lanmueller (P)

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité (DHZC), Berlin, Germany.
DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

E V Potapov (EV)

Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum der Charité (DHZC), Berlin, Germany.
DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

J Kremer (J)

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH