RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: As heart transplant guidelines evolve, the clinical indication for 73% of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implants is now destination therapy. Although completely magnetically levitated LVAD devices have demonstrated improved durability relative to previous models, LVAD replacement procedures are still required for a variety of indications. Thus, the population of patients with a replaced LVAD is growing. There is a paucity of data regarding the outcomes and risk factors for those patients receiving first-time LVAD replacements. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of all consecutive patients between 2006 and 2020 that received a first-time LVAD replacement at a single institution. Preoperative clinical and laboratory variables were collected retrospectively. The primary endpoint was death or need for an additional LVAD replacement. Data were subjected to Kaplan-Meier, univariate, and multivariate Cox hazard ratio analyses. RESULTS: In total, 152 patients were included in the study, of which 101 experienced the primary endpoint. On multivariate analysis, patients receiving HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVADs as the replacement device showed superior outcomes (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.065-0.35, p < 0.0001). Independent risk factors for death or need for additional replacement included preoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (HR 4.44, 95% CI 1.87-14.45, and p = 0.00042), increased number of sternotomies (HR 5.20, 95% CI 1.87-14.45, and p = 0.0016), and preoperative mechanical ventilation (HR 1.98, 95% CI 1.01-3.86, and p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Replacement with HM3 showed superior outcomes compared to all other pump types when controlling for both initial pump type and other independent predictors of death or LVAD replacement. Preoperative ECMO, mechanical ventilation, and multiple sternotomies also increased the odds for death or the need for subsequent replacement.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Trasplante de Corazón , Corazón Auxiliar , Humanos , Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Trasplante de Corazón/efectos adversos , Morbilidad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Implanting an inverted aortic valve prosthesis in the mitral position has shown to be a viable solution for a small mitral annulus. We describe a case of implanting an inverted in the mitral prosthesis in the aortic position in a patient with an excessively large aortic annulus. A 46-year-old male with severe aortic insufficiency underwent aortic valve replacement during a surgical outreach program in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Aortic valve annulus measured 30 mm on preoperative echocardiogram. An inverted On-X mechanical mitral heart valve with Conform-X sewing ring 25/33 mm was implanted with an excellent hemodynamic result and no paravalvular leak. To the best of our knowledge, this case demonstrates the first inverted mitral prosthesis implanted in the aortic valve position.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/métodos , Prótesis Valvulares Cardíacas , Válvula Mitral , Diseño de Prótesis , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/fisiopatología , Ecocardiografía , Recursos en Salud , Hemodinámica , Honduras , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mechanical circulatory support for ≤14 days. It is unknown whether prolonged support is associated with worse outcomes. We sought to review our single-center experience with Impella 5.5 and compare outcomes based on support duration. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed adult patients (≥18 years old) supported with Impella 5.5 at our institution (May 2020 to April 2023). Patients on prolonged support (>14 days) were compared with those supported for ≤14 days. RESULTS: There were 31 patients supported with Impella 5.5 including 14 (45.2%) supported >14 days. Median support duration for those on prolonged support was 43.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 25 to 63.5) days versus 8 (IQR 6, 13) days for those who were not (P < 0.001). Overall, the device-related complication rate was 9.7% and did not differ between groups (P = 0.08). Overall, 30-day postimplant survival was 71% and did not differ by support duration (P = 0.2). In-hospital mortality was 32% and did not differ between cohorts (P > 0.99). Among those surviving to explant (n = 22), long-term strategy included bridge to durable ventricular assist device (18%, n = 4), cardiac transplant (55%, n = 12), and cardiac recovery (27%, n = 6). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with cardiogenic shock may be supported with Impella 5.5 beyond the FDA-approved duration without increased risk of complications or mortality.
Asunto(s)
Trasplante de Corazón , Corazón Auxiliar , Adulto , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Humanos , Adolescente , Estudios Retrospectivos , United States Food and Drug Administration , Resultado del Tratamiento , Choque Cardiogénico/etiología , Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support can cause accelerated progression of aortic insufficiency (AI). The MOMENTUM trial has led to increased use of the HeartMate 3 (HM3) LVAD, due to greater hemocompatibility. However, the differential effect on the rate of progression of AI during HM3 support versus HeartMate 2 (HM2) has not been extensively studied. This analysis compares the rates of progression to moderate or severe AI (MSAI) comparing a cohort of patients supported with the HM2 versus HM3. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients implanted with HM2 or HM3 between May 2005 and June 2020. Follow-up time was limited to the first 6 years after LVAD implantation. Demographics and 4005 echocardiograms were assessed for 536 HM2 and 300 HM3 patients. The primary end point was progression to MSAI. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression and landmark analyses were performed. RESULTS: Progression to MSAI was greater in the HM2 (17%) versus HM3 (9.9%) cohort. On the univariable analysis, the hazard ratio for HM3 was 0.581 (95% confidence interval 0.370-0.909, P = 0.02) whereas on multivariable analysis hazard ratio was 0.624 (95% confidence interval 0.386-1.008, P = 0.0537). Preoperative AI, female sex and body surface area <2 were significantly associated with progression to MSAI. Landmark analysis suggests that LVAD type has the most significant effect on progression to MSAI between 1 and 2 years post-implantation. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice strategies achieved low rates of progression to MSAI. Preoperative AI, female sex and body surface area <2 were the most important predictors of progression to MSAI. Pump type appears to be of secondary importance.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Corazón Auxiliar , Válvula Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/epidemiología , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/etiología , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Ecocardiografía , Femenino , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/etiología , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/cirugía , Corazón Auxiliar/efectos adversos , Humanos , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Risk of adverse events from neurosurgical diagnoses is high. It is not well described whether there are any demographic, admission, or discharge factors that are associated with inpatient or post-discharge mortality outcomes in neurosurgical patients. The aim of this study is to identify the differences in predictors of mortality during inpatient stay and within 30 days of discharge. METHODS: This was a single-institution, retrospective cohort analysis of mortality. Our patient cohort of 11,477 was defined as all adult patients who were discharged (dead or alive) from an inpatient stay between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, and were either admitted to a neurosurgical service or underwent a neurosurgical procedure during that admission. RESULTS: Out of 11,477 patients, 224 (1.95 %) and 290 (2.53 %) died inpatient and within 30 days of discharge, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the independent predictors of inpatient mortality were older age, female gender, diagnostic group, high present on admission severity of illness (POA-SOI) and present on admission risk of mortality (POA-ROM), intensive care unit (ICU) care, and palliative care consult (all pâ¯<â¯0.05). The predictors of mortality within 30-day discharge were older age, admission urgency, admission specialty type, palliative care consult, and discharge disposition (all pâ¯<â¯0.01). CONCLUSION: Older age and palliative care consult were significant predictors of both inpatient and within 30 days of discharge mortality. Admission SOI (>3) and ROM (>3) and ICU care were significant predictors for inpatient mortality while discharge disposition (home health, skilled nursing facility) was important for 30-day mortality.