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
. 2010 Nov;3(6):668-74.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.109.917765. Epub 2010 Aug 25.

The development of aortic insufficiency in left ventricular assist device-supported patients

Jennifer Cowger  1 , Francis D Pagani, Jonathan W Haft, Matthew A Romano, Keith D Aaronson, Theodore J Kolias
Affiliations

The development of aortic insufficiency in left ventricular assist device-supported patients

Jennifer Cowger et al. Circ Heart Fail. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Aortic insufficiency (AI) following left ventricular assist device (LVAD) placement can affect device performance. The aim of this study was to examine AI development following LVAD implantation.

Methods and results: Echocardiograms (n=315) from 78 subjects undergoing HeartMate-XVE (n=25 [32%]) or HeartMate-II (n=53 [68%]) implantations from 2004 to 2008 were reviewed. Studies were obtained preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after surgery. AI was graded on an interval scale (0=none, 0.5=trivial, 1=mild, 1.5=mild-moderate, 2=moderate, 2.5=moderate-severe, 3=severe), and the change in AI at follow-up was analyzed with significance tests. Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from moderate or worse AI at follow-up were generated. Mixed-model linear regression was used to identify correlates of AI progression during LVAD support. The median (25th, 75th percentile) duration of LVAD support was 239 (112, 455) days, and preoperative AI grade was 0.0 (0.0, 0.0). At 6 months, 89±4% of subjects (n=49 at risk) were free from moderate or worse AI, but this was reduced to 74±7% (n=29 at risk) and 49±13% (n=13 at risk) by 12 and 18 months, respectively. Correlates (slope±SE) of AI progression included female sex (0.002±0.001; P=0.01), smaller body surface area (-0.003±0.001 per m(2); P=0.0017), and HeartMate-II model type (0.002±0.001; P=0.039). Correlates (β±SE) of progressive AI on postoperative echocardiogram included increasing aortic sinus diameter (0.04±0.01 per mm; P=0.001), an aortic valve that remained closed (0.42±0.06; P<0.001) or only intermittently opened (0.34±0.09; P<0.001), and lower left ventricular diastolic (-0.002±0.0004 per cm(3); P<0.001) and systolic (-0.002±0.0004 per cm(3); P<0.001) volumes.

Conclusions: AI progresses over time in LVAD-supported patients. As we move toward an era of long-term cardiac support, more studies are needed to determine the clinical significance of these findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box plot of aortic insufficiency grade. Insufficiency grades: 0=none, 0.5=trivial, 1.0=mild, 1.5=mild-moderate, 2.0=moderate, 2.5=moderate-severe, 3.0=severe. Thick horizontal line represents median.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Aortic insufficiency progression during LVAD support. Echocardiography images of aortic insufficiency a.) preoperatively and at b.) 9 months after HeartMate II implant are shown. The aortic insufficiency is continuous in systole and diastole.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Aortic insufficiency progression during LVAD support. Echocardiography images of aortic insufficiency a.) preoperatively and at b.) 9 months after HeartMate II implant are shown. The aortic insufficiency is continuous in systole and diastole.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Profile plot of aortic insufficiency for LVAD support subjects at follow-up. The overall trend in aortic insufficiency is shown for HeartMate-XVE (blue) and HeartMate-II (red) groups. AI grade as previously defined.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Miller LW, Pagani FD, Russell SD, John R, Boyle AJ, Aaronson KD, Conte JV, Naka Y, Mancini D, Delgado RM, MacGillivray TE, Farrar DJ, Frazier OH. Use of a continuous-flow device in patients awaiting heart transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:885–96. - PubMed
    1. Rose EA, Gelijns AC, Moskowitz AJ, Heitjan DF, Stevenson LW, Dembitsky W, Long JW, Ascheim DD, Tierney AR, Levitan RG, Watson JT, Meier P, Ronan NS, Shapiro PA, Lazar RM, Miller LW, Gupta L, Frazier OH, Desvigne-Nickens P, Oz MC, Poirier VL. Long-term mechanical left ventricular assistance for end-stage heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1435–43. - PubMed
    1. Mudd JO, Cuda JD, Halushka M, Soderlund KA, Conte JV, Russell SD. Fusion of aortic valve commissures in patients supported by a continuous axial flow left ventricular assist device. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2008;27:1269–74. - PubMed
    1. Rose AG, Park SJ, Bank AJ, Miller LW. Partial aortic valve fusion induced by left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;70:1270–4. - PubMed
    1. Rao V, Slater JP, Edwards NM, Naka Y, Oz MC. Surgical management of valvular disease in patients requiring left ventricular assist device support. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:1448–53. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms