HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Stefan Klotz Christof Schmid Gabriele Drees Andreas Rukosujew Hans H. Scheld Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Klotz, S. Articles by Scheld, H. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Klotz, S. Articles by Scheld, H. H. Related Collections Mechanical Circulatory Assistance

Ann Thorac Surg 2006;82:1774-1778
© 2006 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Does Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Technology Have a Positive Impact on Outcome Pretransplant and Posttransplant?

^a Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany
^b Department of Cardiology and Angiology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany

Accepted for publication May 16, 2006.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Klotz, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 33, 48149 Münster, Germany (Email: stefan.klotz{at}ukmuenster.de).

Presented at the Poster Session of the Forty-Second Annual Meeting of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Chicago, IL, Jan 30–Feb 1, 2006.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) with continuous flow properties are increasingly used to bridge heart failure patients to cardiac transplantation. Advantages in comparison with the pulsatile LVADs are smaller size, better endurance, and lower thromboembolic events. However, whether these new pumps have similar pre- and posttransplant outcomes is not clear.

METHODS: Fifty patients with a continuous flow device (Micromed DeBakey, Houston, TX or InCor BerlinHeart, Berlin, Germany) were compared with an age-, disease-, and LVAD duration-matched control group (n = 80) supported with a pulsatile device (Novacor, WorldHeart, Oakland, CA or HeartMate, Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, CA).

RESULTS: Age (44.3 ± 13.4 vs 46.1 ± 11.1 years), disease (idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, 58% vs 65%), and LVAD duration (138 ± 131 vs 128 ± 106 days) were comparable in both groups. Successful bridging to transplantation was similar with continuous flow in comparison with pulsatile device support (52% vs 56%, p = not significant [NS]). Thirty-day mortality after cardiac transplantation in patients with continuous flow LVAD support was 21.7% vs 22.2% with pulsatile LVADs (p = NS). Reasons for death were similar among the different LVAD groups. Long-term survival was similar in both LVAD groups compared with patients without previous LVAD support. Interestingly, severe rejections were significantly more frequent in patients with a continuous flow LVAD (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The new generation of cardiac assist devices with continuous flow pattern has a similar rate of pre- and posttransplant mortality in comparison with pulsatile LVADs. However, the rate and severity of posttransplant rejection was significantly higher in the group with continuous flow devices. Further studies are warranted to explain the higher rate of severe rejections.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Garatti, G. Bruschi, T. Colombo, C. Russo, M. Lanfranconi, F. Milazzo, M. Frigerio, and E. Vitali Clinical outcome and bridge to transplant rate of left ventricular assist device recipient patients: comparison between continuous-flow and pulsatile-flow devices. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., August 1, 2008; 34(2): 275 - 280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]