Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2009 Apr;137(4):971-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.09.021.

Early planned institution of biventricular mechanical circulatory support results in improved outcomes compared with delayed conversion of a left ventricular assist device to a biventricular assist device

J Raymond Fitzpatrick 3rd  1 , John R Frederick, William Hiesinger, Vivian M Hsu, Ryan C McCormick, Elliott D Kozin, Carine M Laporte, Mary Lou O'Hara, Elan Howell, Deborah Dougherty, Jeffrey E Cohen, Kevin W Southerland, Jessica L Howard, E Carter Paulson, Michael A Acker, Rohinton J Morris, Y Joseph Woo
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Early planned institution of biventricular mechanical circulatory support results in improved outcomes compared with delayed conversion of a left ventricular assist device to a biventricular assist device

J Raymond Fitzpatrick 3rd et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: It is generally accepted that patients who require biventricular assist device support have poorer outcomes than those requiring isolated left ventricular assist device support. However, it is unknown how the timing of biventricular assist device insertion affects outcomes. We hypothesized that planned biventricular assist device insertion improves survival compared with delayed conversion of left ventricular assist device support to biventricular assist device support.

Methods: We reviewed and compared outcomes of 266 patients undergoing left ventricular assist device or biventricular assist device placement at the University of Pennsylvania from April 1995 to June 2007. We subdivided patients receiving biventricular assist devices into planned biventricular assist device (P-BiVAD) and delayed biventricular assist device (D-BiVAD) groups based on the timing of right ventricular assist device insertion. We defined the D-BiVAD group as any failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support.

Results: Of 266 patients who received left ventricular assist devices, 99 (37%) required biventricular assist device support. We compared preoperative characteristics, successful bridging to transplantation, survival to hospital discharge, and Kaplan-Meier 1-year survival between the P-BiVAD (n = 71) and D-BiVAD (n = 28) groups. Preoperative comparison showed that patients who ultimately require biventricular support have similar preoperative status. Left ventricular assist device (n = 167) outcomes in all categories exceeded both P-BiVAD and D-BiVAD group outcomes. Furthermore, patients in the P-BiVAD group had superior survival to discharge than patients in the D-BiVAD group (51% vs 29%, P < .05). One-year and long-term Kaplan-Meier survival distribution confirmed this finding. There was also a trend toward improved bridging to transplantation in the P-BiVAD (n = 55) versus D-BiVAD (n = 22) groups (65% vs 45%, P = .10).

Conclusion: When patients at high risk for failure of isolated left ventricular assist device support are identified, proceeding directly to biventricular assist device implantation is advised because early institution of biventricular support results in dramatic improvement in survival.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Survival to Cardiac Transplantation compared between LVAD, P-BiVAD, and D-BiVAD groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Survival to Hospital Discharge compared between LVAD, P-BiVAD, and D-BiVAD groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Long-term survival distribution curves for A.) LVAD, B.) P-BiVAD, and C.) D-BiVAD groups.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Long-term survival distribution curves for A.) LVAD, B.) P-BiVAD, and C.) D-BiVAD groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Goldstein DJ, Oz MC, Rose EA. Implantable left ventricular assist devices. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(21):1522–1533. - PubMed
    1. Rao V, Oz MC, Flannery MA, Catanese KA, Argenziano M, Naka Y. Revised screening scale to predict survival after insertion of a left ventricular assist device. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:855–861. - PubMed
    1. Potapov EV, Loforte A, Weng Y, Jurmann M, Pasic M, Drews T, et al. Experience with over 1000 implanted ventricular assist devices. J Card Surg. 2008;23(3):185–194. - PubMed
    1. Aaronson KD, Eppinger MJ, Dyke DB, Wright S, Pagani FD. Left ventricular assist device therapy improves utilization of donor hearts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;9:1247–1254. - PubMed
    1. Rose EA, Moskowitz AJ, Packer M, Sollano JA, Williams DL, Tierney AR, et al. The REMATCH trial: rationale, design, and end points. Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;67(3):723–730. - PubMed

Publication types