Search

Background: Implantable left ventricular assist devices are common as a bridge to transplantation but are just reaching their goal as an alternative to transplantation., Methods: From December 1991 until December 1996, 97 left ventricular assist devices were implanted as a bridge to transplantation, one as an alternative to transplantation, and two as a bridge to recovery. Included were 64 pneumatic devices and 36 electric devices. Most patients (69%) had ischemic cardiomyopathy and most (53%) had had previous cardiac surgery. Preoperative circulatory support (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) was used in 25., Results: Perioperative insertion of a right ventricular assist device was unusual (11%). The mean duration of support with a left ventricular assist device (bridge to transplantation) was 70 +/- 41 days (up to 206 days). Survival to transplantation was 76%. Cause of death included multiple organ failure (n = 13), perioperative stroke (n = 5), device failure (n = 5), and controller disconnect (n = 1). Significant risk factors for death included (1) preoperative need for ventilator or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, (2) elevated blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, or bilirubin, and (3) low pulmonary artery pressures. Risks after insertion of the left ventricular assist device were reoperation for bleeding, support with a right ventricular assist device, dialysis, or device failure. Catastrophic failure of the device occurred 14 times in 12 patients and was treated by emergency pump exchange in six instances. Only two device-related thromboembolic episodes were detected. Positive blood cultures were found in 59% of patients, driveline infection in 28%, and pump infection in 11%., Conclusions: The HeartMate device provided excellent hemodynamic support with low device-related thromboembolic events. Infection and reliability of the device contributed to the high cost of therapy. These areas need to be improved for the left ventricular assist device to attain its goal as a viable alternative to transplantation.

Objective: We sought to determine the role of partial left ventriculectomy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy., Methods: Since May 1996 we have performed partial left ventriculectomy in 53 patients, primarily (94%) in heart transplant candidates. The mean age of the patients was 53 years (range 17 to 72 years); 60% were in class IV and 40% in class III. Preoperatively, 51 patients were thought to have idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, one familial cardiomyopathy, and one valvular cardiomyopathy. As our experience accrued we increased the extent of left ventriculectomy and more complex mitral valve repairs. For two patients mitral valve replacement was performed. For 51 patients the anterior and posterior mitral valve leaflets were approximated (Alfieri repair); 47 patients also had ring posterior annuloplasty. In 27 patients (51%) one or both papillary muscles were divided, additional left ventricular wall was resected, and the papillary muscle heads were reimplanted., Results: Echocardiography showed a significant decrease in left ventricular dimensions after resection (8.3 cm to 5.8 cm), reduction in mitral regurgitation (2.8+ to 0), and increase in forward ejection fraction (15.7% to 32.7%). Cardiac index did not increase significantly (2.2 to 2.4 L/min per square meter). Eight patients (15%) required a perioperative left ventricular assist device; one died and was the only perioperative mortality (1.9%). At 11 months, actuarial survival was 87% and freedom from relisting for transplantation was 72%., Conclusions: Improved selection criteria are necessary to avoid early failures, and much more follow-up and analyses of data are mandatory. However, the operation may become a biologic bridge, or even alternative, to transplantation.

Objectives: We sought to determine whether cardiac transplant recipients who required a bridge to transplantation with an implantable left ventricular assist device had a different outcome than patients who underwent transplantation without such a bridge., Methods: A retrospective study of 256 cardiac transplants from 1992 to 1996 included 53 patients who received the HeartMate left ventricular assist device and 203 patients who had no left ventricular assist device support., Results: Left ventricular assist device transplants increased from 8% of all transplants in 1992 (n = 63) to 32% in 1995 (n = 65) and 43% in 1996 (n = 14 year to date). Patients with and without left ventricular assist device had similar age and sex distributions. Left ventricular assist device recipients were larger (body surface area 1.96 vs 1.86 m2, p = 0.004). They were more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (70% vs 45%, p = 0.001) and type O blood group (51% vs 34%, p = 0.06). All patients with left ventricular assist device and 42% of those without had undergone previous cardiac operations by the time of transplantation (mean number per patient 1.5 vs 0.3, p < 0.001). More patients in the left ventricular assist device group had anti-HLA antibodies before transplantation (T-cell panel reactive antibody level > 10% in 66% of left ventricular assist device group vs 15% of control group, p < 0.0001). Waiting time was longer for the left ventricular assist device than for patients in status I without a left ventricular assist device (median 88 vs 37 days, p = 0.002). There was no difference in length of posttransplantation hospital stay (median 15 days for each) or operative mortality (3.8% vs 4.4%). Mean follow-up averaged 22 months. No significant difference was found in Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. One-year survival was 94% in the left ventricular assist device group and 88% in the control group (difference not significant). Comparison of posttransplantation events showed no significant difference in actuarial rates of cytomegalovirus infection (20% vs 17%) or vascular rejection (15% vs 12%) at 1 year of follow-up. Similar percentages of patients were free from cellular rejection at 1 year of follow-up (12% vs 22%, p = 0.36)., Conclusions: Left ventricular assist device support intensified the donor shortage by including recipients who otherwise would not have survived to transplantation. Bridging affected transplant demographics, favoring patients who are larger, have ischemic cardiomyopathy, have had multiple blood transfusions and complex cardiac operations, and are HLA sensitized. Successfully bridged patients wait longer for a transplant than do UNOS status I patients without such a bridge, but they have similar posttransplantation hospital stay, operative mortality, and survival to those of patients not requiring left ventricular assist device support.

To evaluate hemodynamic effectiveness and physiologic changes on the HeartMate 1000 IP left ventricular assist device (Thermo Cardiosystems, Inc., Woburn, Mass.), we studied 25 patients undergoing bridge to heart transplantation (35 to 63 years old, mean 50 years). All were receiving inotropic agents before left ventricular assist device implantation, 21 (84%) were supported with a balloon pump, and 7 (28%) were supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Six patients died, primarily of right ventricular dysfunction and multiple organ failure. Nineteen (76%) were rehabilitated, received a donor heart, and were discharged (100% survival after transplantation). Pretransplantation duration of support averaged 76 days (22 to 153 days). No thromboembolic events occurred in more than 1500 patient-days of support with only antiplatelet medications. Significant hemodynamic improvement was measured (before implantation to before explantation) in cardiac index (1.7 +/- 0.3 to 3.1 +/- 0.8 L/min per square meter; p < 0.001), left atrial pressure (23.7 +/- 7 to 9 +/- 7.5 mm Hg; p < 0.001), pulmonary artery pressure, pulmonary vascular resistance, and right ventricular volumes and ejection fraction. Both creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels were significantly higher before implantation in patients who died while receiving support. Renal and liver function returned to normal before transplantation. We conclude that support with the HeartMate device improved hemodynamic and subsystem function before transplantation. Long-term support with the HeartMate device has a low risk of thromboemboli and makes a clinical trial of a portable HeartMate device a realistic alternative to medical therapy.