Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: a comparison of two techniques.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Jul; 19(1):49-55.IC

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Right ventricular failure (RVF) after implantation of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a dramatic complication. We compared retrospectively two techniques of temporary right ventricular support after LVAD (HeartMate II, Thoratec Corp, Pleasonton, CA, USA) implantation.

METHODS

From 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2012, 78 patients [mean age 52 ± 1.34 years; 15 women (19%)] received a HeartMate II at our institution. Among these, 18 patients (23%) suffered postimplant RVF treated by peripheral temporary right ventricular support. Aetiology of heart failure was ischaemic in 12 (67%) and dilated cardiomyopathy in 6 (33%) patients. The preimplant RV risk score averaged 5.1 ± 0.59. Ten patients were treated using a femorofemoral venoarterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and 8 patients were treated using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) established between a femoral vein and the pulmonary artery via a Dacron prosthesis (RVAD).

RESULTS

Duration of RV support was 7.12 ± 5.4 days and 9.57 ± 3.5 days in venoarterial ECLS and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD groups, respectively (P = 0.32). Three patients (17%) died while under RV support (venoarterial ECLS, n = 2; and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD, n = 1, P = 0.58). In the venoarterial ECLS group, 6 (60%) patients suffered major thromboembolic complications including thrombosis of the ECLS arterial line (n = 2), ischaemic stroke (n = 2) and thrombosis of the ascending aorta (n = 2). No major complication was observed in the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.01). RV support was successfully weaned in 8 (80%) patients of the venoarterial ECLS group and in 7 (87.5%) of the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.58). The duration of postimplant intensive care unit stay was not different (respectively, 27.5 ± 18.7 days and 20.0 ± 12.0 days; P = 0.38) between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary support of the failing RV after LVAD implantation using temporary vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD is a promising therapeutic option. This approach provides adequate LVAD pre- and afterload and is associated with significantly less thromboembolic complications.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France matthias.kirsch@bch.aphp.fr.Department of Cardiac Anesthesia and Reanimation, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.Department of Cardiac Anesthesia and Reanimation, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.Department of Cardiac Anesthesia and Reanimation, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.Department of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, Cardiology Institute, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, University of Paris VI, Paris, France.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24659551

Citation

Noly, Pierre-Emmanuel, et al. "Temporary Right Ventricular Support Following Left Ventricle Assist Device Implantation: a Comparison of Two Techniques." Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, vol. 19, no. 1, 2014, pp. 49-55.
Noly PE, Kirsch M, Quessard A, et al. Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: a comparison of two techniques. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19(1):49-55.
Noly, P. E., Kirsch, M., Quessard, A., Leger, P., Pavie, A., Amour, J., & Leprince, P. (2014). Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: a comparison of two techniques. Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, 19(1), 49-55. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivu072
Noly PE, et al. Temporary Right Ventricular Support Following Left Ventricle Assist Device Implantation: a Comparison of Two Techniques. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;19(1):49-55. PubMed PMID: 24659551.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Temporary right ventricular support following left ventricle assist device implantation: a comparison of two techniques. AU - Noly,Pierre-Emmanuel, AU - Kirsch,Matthias, AU - Quessard,Astrid, AU - Leger,Philippe, AU - Pavie,Alain, AU - Amour,Julien, AU - Leprince,Pascal, Y1 - 2014/03/21/ PY - 2014/3/25/entrez PY - 2014/3/25/pubmed PY - 2015/2/11/medline KW - Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation KW - Left ventricular assistance device KW - Right ventricular failure SP - 49 EP - 55 JF - Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery JO - Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg VL - 19 IS - 1 N2 - OBJECTIVES: Right ventricular failure (RVF) after implantation of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a dramatic complication. We compared retrospectively two techniques of temporary right ventricular support after LVAD (HeartMate II, Thoratec Corp, Pleasonton, CA, USA) implantation. METHODS: From 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2012, 78 patients [mean age 52 ± 1.34 years; 15 women (19%)] received a HeartMate II at our institution. Among these, 18 patients (23%) suffered postimplant RVF treated by peripheral temporary right ventricular support. Aetiology of heart failure was ischaemic in 12 (67%) and dilated cardiomyopathy in 6 (33%) patients. The preimplant RV risk score averaged 5.1 ± 0.59. Ten patients were treated using a femorofemoral venoarterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) and 8 patients were treated using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) established between a femoral vein and the pulmonary artery via a Dacron prosthesis (RVAD). RESULTS: Duration of RV support was 7.12 ± 5.4 days and 9.57 ± 3.5 days in venoarterial ECLS and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD groups, respectively (P = 0.32). Three patients (17%) died while under RV support (venoarterial ECLS, n = 2; and vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD, n = 1, P = 0.58). In the venoarterial ECLS group, 6 (60%) patients suffered major thromboembolic complications including thrombosis of the ECLS arterial line (n = 2), ischaemic stroke (n = 2) and thrombosis of the ascending aorta (n = 2). No major complication was observed in the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.01). RV support was successfully weaned in 8 (80%) patients of the venoarterial ECLS group and in 7 (87.5%) of the vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD group (P = 0.58). The duration of postimplant intensive care unit stay was not different (respectively, 27.5 ± 18.7 days and 20.0 ± 12.0 days; P = 0.38) between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Temporary support of the failing RV after LVAD implantation using temporary vein and the pulmonary artery RVAD is a promising therapeutic option. This approach provides adequate LVAD pre- and afterload and is associated with significantly less thromboembolic complications. SN - 1569-9285 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24659551/Temporary_right_ventricular_support_following_left_ventricle_assist_device_implantation:_a_comparison_of_two_techniques_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -