RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study was to investigate if concomitant tricuspid valve repair in patients undergoing continuous flow left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has an impact on the outcome regarding survival and adverse events. METHODS: Between June 2007 and February 2018, 124 consecutive patients received HeartMate II (HMII) [74 (59.7%)] HeartWare (HVAD) [16 (12.9%)], or HeartMate III (HM III) [34 (27.4%)] for end-stage heart failure. Mean age was 63.5±10.9 years. Two 18-patient groups were identified; with [tricuspid valve reconstruction (TVR)] group and without (non-TVR group) accompanying TVR. The primary endpoint was overall survival after device implantation. Secondary endpoints were adverse events during the follow-up period. RESULTS: Survival was not significantly different between the groups (P>0.05). In TVR group, there was a higher need for open chest after surgery and a prolonged inotrope use because of right heart failure (RHF), a higher incidence of acute kidney dysfunction requiring dialysis, as well as a higher need for packed red blood cells due to postoperative bleeding (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, LVAD implantation with a concurrent tricuspid valve repair appears to have a worse outcome regarding RHF, bleeding tendency and renal dysfunction (P<0.05). However, the survival was comparable in both TVR and Non-TVR groups (P>0.05).
RESUMO
We present a comparison between three left ventricular assist devices (LVADs): HeartWare (HVAD) (HeartWare International Inc., Framingham, MA, USA), HeartMate II (HMII) and HeartMate III (HMIII) (Thoratec Corp., Pleasanton, CA, USA). To our knowledge, no study to date has aimed at placing these three devices in juxtaposition. Between June 2007 and June 2017, 108 consecutive patients received HMII, n = 77 (71.3%), HVAD, n = 14 (13%), or HM III, n = 17 (15.7%), for end-stage heart failure. Mean age was 63.8 ± 11.2 years (range 24-84 years), with median INTERMACS profile of 3. Preoperatively, 26 patients (24.1%) were ventilated, 17 patients (15.7%) had an intraaortic balloon pump, and 27 patients (25%) were on extracorporeal life support. Overall survival at 30 days was 70.4%, at 1 year 51.9%, and at 5 years 38% with no significant difference in survival between HMII, HVAD, and HMIII. Median cardiopulmonary bypass time was 113 min (range 50-371 min). Two patients received a minimally-invasive procedure. Most common adverse events were revision for bleeding (42.6%), tracheotomy (33.3%), acute kidney failure with new-onset dialysis (25%), sepsis (17.6%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (10.2%). The average duration of follow-up was 1.52 ± 2.11 years (range 0-7.95 years). The median number of readmissions was 2 (range 0-23), the median length of hospital stay as readmission was 17 days (range 0-158 days). Strong predictors of overall mortality (P < 0.05) were postoperative sepsis (OR = 5.729, 95%CI = 3.001-10.937), intraoperative/postoperative need for right ventricular mechanical support (OR = 5.232, 95%CI = 3.008-9.102), preoperative extracorporeal life support (OR = 2.980, 95%CI = 1.615-5.500), readmission because of suboptimal INR value (OR = 2.748, 95%CI = 1.045-7.226), need of inotropes over 7 days postoperatively (OR = 2.556, 95%CI = 1.432-4.562), new onset of temporary hemodialysis postoperatively (OR = 1.986, 95%CI = 1.084-3.635), and female gender (OR = 1.955, 95%CI = 1.062-3.598). No significant difference in mortality between HMII, HVAD, and HMIII was observed. The following predictors of overall mortality were identified (P < 0.05): postoperative sepsis, need for perioperative mechanical support, readmission because of suboptimal INR value, new onset of temporary hemodialysis postoperatively and female gender.