Learning Curve in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Low Volumes Do Not Equate Bad Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Most implantations of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are performed in low-volume centers. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural learning curve of HeartMate II (HM2) implantations by comparing outcomes between two time periods in a low-volume center. METHODS: All 51 consecutive patients undergoing HM2 implantation between January 2009 and December 2017 were reviewed and allocated into 2 groups: early-era group (from 2009 to 2014; n=25) and late-era group (from 2015 to 2017; n=26). The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate, and the secondary outcome was a composite of mortality, neurological event, reoperation for bleeding, need for temporary right ventricular assist device, and pump thrombosis at 90 days. Median follow-up time was 51 months (0-136). A cumulative sum (CUSUM) control analysis was used to establish a threshold of implantations that optimizes outcomes. RESULTS: Patients in the early era had a higher rate of diabetes, previous stroke, and inotrope support before HM2 implantation. The 90-day mortality rate was not significantly higher in the early era (24% vs. 15%, P=0.43), but the composite endpoint was significantly higher (76% vs. 42%, P=0.01). The CUSUM analysis found a threshold of 23 operations after which the composite endpoint was optimized. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing HM2 implantation in a low-volume center have improving outcomes with number of cases and optimized results after a threshold of 23 cases. Significant changes in patient selection, surgical techniques, and patient management might lead to improved outcomes after LVAD implantation.

Learning Curve in Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: Low Volumes Do Not Equate Bad Outcomes

ABSTRACT Introduction: Most implantations of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) are performed in low-volume centers. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural learning curve of HeartMate II (HM2) implantations by comparing outcomes between two time periods in a low-volume center. Methods: All 51 consecutive patients undergoing HM2 implantation between January 2009 and December 2017 were reviewed and allocated into 2 groups: early-era group (from 2009 to 2014; n=25) and late-era group (from 2015 to 2017; n=26). The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality rate, and the secondary outcome was a composite of mortality, neurological event, reoperation for bleeding, need for temporary right ventricular assist device, and pump thrombosis at 90 days. Median follow-up time was 51 months (0-136). A cumulative sum (CUSUM) control analysis was used to establish a threshold of implantations that optimizes outcomes. Results: Patients in the early era had a higher rate of diabetes, previous stroke, and inotrope support before HM2 implantation. The 90-day mortality rate was not significantly higher in the early era (24% vs. 15%, P=0.43), but the composite endpoint was significantly higher (76% vs. 42%, P=0.01). The CUSUM analysis found a threshold of 23 operations after which the composite endpoint was optimized. Conclusion: Patients undergoing HM2 implantation in a low-volume center have improving outcomes with number of cases and optimized results after a threshold of 23 cases. Significant changes in patient selection, surgical techniques, and patient management might lead to improved outcomes after LVAD implantation.

Is patient-prosthesis mismatch a perioperative predictor of long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement?

OBJECTIVES: To determine the perioperative predictors of long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement (AVR). The authors hypothesized that perioperative variables are more important predictors of mortality than patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). DESIGN: A retrospective study of prospectively collected data. SETTING: A tertiary care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred-ninety-nine adult patients who underwent AVR. INTERVENTIONS: After Research and Ethics Committee approval, the authors studied consecutive adult patients that underwent AVR in 1999 from the time of procedure to 5 years later. Demographic data, hemodynamic profile obtained after the induction of anesthesia, and perioperative data were analyzed. Primary endpoint was 5-year survival. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Actuarial survival rate was 95.98%, 91.46%, and 81.91% at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, respectively. On univariate analysis, patients who died were significantly older (p<0.0001), had pulmonary hypertension (PHT), longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (p = 0.0001) and cross-clamping duration (p = 0.003), more frequent return to CPB (p = 0.036), or the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump to wean from CPB (p = 0.015). PPM was not related to 5-year mortality (p = 0.0649). Using Cox survival analysis, the only independent risk factors related to 5-year mortality after AVR were PHT using the mean arterial pressure-to-mean pulmonary artery pressure ratio (HR: 1.39, 95% CI 1.01-1.92, p = 0.0413) and the presence of complex separation from CPB (HR: 2.66, 95% CI 1.08-6.50, p = 0.0324). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing AVR, 5-year survival was mostly related to the severity of PHT and intraoperative factors, mainly complexity of weaning from CPB.

El perfil cardiovascular de los nuevos agentes anestésicos inhalados: desfluorane y sevofluorane

Drogas nuevas entran continuamente en la práctica clínica reemplazando a otras ya establecidas. Para ser de valor clínico, deberán tener ventajas claramente identificables con respecto a las drogas existentes y estar disponible a un costo apropiado para estas ventajas. Sobre la base del perfil cardiovascular, el desfluorane y el sevofluorane parecen ser similares al isofluorane. El sevofluorane no se ha asociado con un aumento en la frecuencia cardíaca mientras que altos MAC o aumentos rápidos de isofluorane y desfluorane fueron asociados con taquicardia. Su aceptabilidad en la práctica clínica dependerá en gran medida de otros beneficios farmacocinéticos y farmacodinámicos que de su perfil cardiovascular