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): Michel Haddad James M. Brown Bartley P. Griffith Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Feller, E. D. Articles by Griffith, B. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Feller, E. D. Articles by Griffith, B. P. Related Collections Mechanical Circulatory Assistance

Ann Thorac Surg 2007;83:1082-1088
© 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original Articles: Cardiovascular

Clinical Outcomes Are Similar in Pulsatile and Nonpulsatile Left Ventricular Assist Device Recipients

^a Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
^b Division of Clinical Engineering, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland
^c Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland

Accepted for publication October 16, 2006.

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Feller, Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland Medical Center, 22 S Greene St, S3B08, Baltimore, MD 21201 (Email: efeller{at}medicine.umaryland.edu).

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: Despite concerns about the adequacy of support provided by continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), direct comparisons of patient characteristics and outcomes between first-generation pulsatile and second-generation nonpulsatile LVADs are absent. We hypothesized that a nonpulsatile Jarvik 2000 LVAD (Jarvik Heart, Inc, New York, NY) would result in comparable outcomes to those of similarly ill patients implanted with a pulsatile LVAD (Novacor, WorldHeart Inc, Oakland, CA; and HeartMate XVE, Thoratec, Pleasanton, CA).

Methods: We retrospectively compared common pre-LVAD clinical characteristics and indicators of heart failure severity between 13 pulsatile and 14 nonpulsatile LVAD recipients. The outcomes analyzed were either heart transplantation, if the LVAD was intended as a bridge to transplantation, or hospital discharge if the intention was destination therapy.

Results: There was no significant difference between groups in pre-LVAD disease severity indicators. Nonpulsatile LVAD recipients had a significantly smaller body surface area (1.9 ± 0.2 m² versus 2.1 ± 0.2 m², p = 0.04) and cardiopulmonary bypass time was also significantly shorter (61 ± 34 minutes versus 110 ± 49 minutes, p = 0.01). Aside from duration of initial intensive care unit stay (nonpulsatile, 10 ± 16 days; pulsatile, 14 ± 11 days; p = 0.02), there was no difference in post-LVAD outcomes: 10 of 14 nonpulsatile and 8 of 13 pulsatile LVAD patients achieved the combined end point (p = 0.69).

Conclusions: Similarly ill congestive heart failure patients benefited equally well from either a nonpulsatile or a pulsatile LVAD. This may support an expanded role for nonpulsatile LVADs in the treatment of severe heart failure.

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]