Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes
- PMID: 20132950
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.11.020
Right ventricular failure in patients with the HeartMate II continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and effect on outcomes of right ventricular failure in a large population of patients implanted with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.
Methods: Patients (n = 484) enrolled in the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device (Thoratec, Pleasanton, Calif) bridge-to-transplantation clinical trial were examined for the occurrence of right ventricular failure. Right ventricular failure was defined as requiring a right ventricular assist device, 14 or more days of inotropic support after implantation, and/or inotropic support starting more than 14 days after implantation. Demographics, along with clinical, laboratory, and hemodynamic data, were compared between patients with and without right ventricular failure, and risk factors were identified.
Results: Overall, 30 (6%) patients receiving left ventricular assist devices required a right ventricular assist device, 35 (7%) required extended inotropes, and 33 (7%) required late inotropes. A significantly greater percentage of patients without right ventricular failure survived to transplantation, recovery, or ongoing device support at 180 days compared with patients with right ventricular failure (89% vs 71%, P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed that a central venous pressure/pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ratio of greater than 0.63 (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-4.3; P = .009), need for preoperative ventilator support (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-13.2; P < .001), and blood urea nitrogen level of greater than 39 mg/dL (odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.1; P = .02) were independent predictors of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation.
Conclusions: The incidence of right ventricular failure in patients with a HeartMate II ventricular assist device is comparable or less than that of patients with pulsatile-flow devices. Its occurrence is associated with worse outcomes than seen in patients without right ventricular failure. Patients at risk for right ventricular failure might benefit from preoperative optimization of right heart function or planned biventricular support.
2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Right heart dysfunction after left ventricular assist device implantation: a comparison of the pulsatile HeartMate I and axial-flow HeartMate II devices.Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Sep;86(3):832-40; discussion 832-40. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.05.016. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008. PMID: 18721570
-
Post-cardiac transplant survival after support with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device: impact of duration of left ventricular assist device support and other variables.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 Jul;140(1):174-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.03.037. Epub 2010 May 5. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010. PMID: 20447659
-
Improved survival and decreasing incidence of adverse events with the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device as bridge-to-transplant therapy.Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Oct;86(4):1227-34; discussion 1234-5. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.06.030. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008. PMID: 18805167
-
Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device and the right ventricle.AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012 Jan-Mar;23(1):86-90. doi: 10.1097/NCI.0b013e31823ef240. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2012. PMID: 22290094 Review.
-
Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: the need for an implantable right ventricular assist device.Artif Organs. 2005 May;29(5):369-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2005.29063.x. Artif Organs. 2005. PMID: 15854212 Review.
Cited by
-
Outcomes With Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitor Use After Left Ventricular Assist Device: An STS-INTERMACS Analysis.Circ Heart Fail. 2022 Apr;15(4):e008613. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.121.008613. Epub 2022 Mar 25. Circ Heart Fail. 2022. PMID: 35332780 Free PMC article.
-
Executive Summary - Guidelines for Mechanical Circulatory Support of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology.Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018 Jul;111(1):4-12. doi: 10.5935/abc.20180126. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2018. PMID: 30110040 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Left Ventricular Assist Device: What the Internist Needs to Know. A Review of the Literature.Cureus. 2019 Apr 5;11(4):e4399. doi: 10.7759/cureus.4399. Cureus. 2019. PMID: 31245189 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Cardiological Challenges Related to Long-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support for Advanced Heart Failure in Patients with Chronic Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.J Clin Med. 2023 Oct 10;12(20):6451. doi: 10.3390/jcm12206451. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 37892589 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Current practice in patient selecting for long-term mechanical circulatory support.Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015 Apr;12(2):120-9. doi: 10.1007/s11897-014-0243-3. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2015. PMID: 25433835 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical