|
|
||||||||
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2000;18:220-224
© 2000 Elsevier Science NL
a Department of Cardiac Surgery, CNRS and Claude Bernard Association, University Hospital Henri Mondor, 51 Avenue du Maréchal De Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France
b Edwards Lifesciences, Novacor Division, Utrecht, Netherlands
c Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
Received 7 September 1999; received in revised form 26 April 2000; accepted 10 May 2000.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-1-49-81-21-51; fax: +33-1-49-81-21-52
e-mail: loisance{at}univ-paris12.fr
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: Cardiac failure Mechanical circulatory support
| 1. Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Prolonged mechanical circulatory support represents one of these options. The left ventricular assist system (LVAS) should be capable of providing an extended bridge to transplantation (BTT), allowing full rehabilitation of the patients before definitive therapy: elective cardiac transplantation; a bridge to the recovery of native left ventricular function (depending on underlying cardiac disease) [2]; or permanent implantation (when cardiac transplantation is contra-indicated).
The Novacor LVAS, initially designed for permanent use, has been utilized in the bridge to transplantation application since 1984 [3]. Progressive refinements in the technology have resulted in the first implantation of a wearable, implanted version in 1993 [4]. Since then, support times have steadily increased. For the first time in the history of mechanical circulatory support, a significant experience has been accumulated in patients supported for more than one year. These recipients offer an unique opportunity to evaluate the feasibility of long-term ambulatory mechanical circulatory support as a therapeutic option for patients in advanced cardiac failure, and they represent the basis of this report.
| 2. Materials and methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Patient characteristics at the time of implantation are summarized in Table 1. Hemodynamics and biological markers of secondary organ dysfunction are listed in Table 2. These data were obtained following optimal medical therapy, and underline the degree of cardiac decompensation prior to implant.
|
|
| 3. Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Median duration of LVAS support was 1.49 (1.034.10) years. Eight recipients had LVAS support times >2 years, of which two were >3 years and one >4 years. The median duration of hospitalization before discharge was 72 (28510) days; the median time spent outside the hospital was 1.27 (0.583.83) years, representing 82% of the duration of LVAS support.
The incidence of complications during the three time intervals is shown in Fig. 1 . Surgically-related bleeding (9/36, 25%) was the predominant complication in the initial period. Neurological events (neurological deficit which is sudden in onset, clinically relevant and persists for more than 24 h) were diagnosed in 6/36 (17%) patients and occurred predominantly in the first 23 months. Infection, particularly following the first month, was the most important complication. Most infections were minor, representing either driveline exit-site or pump pocket infections. However, some were more serious systemic infections or endocarditis of the valved conduit. The overall freedom from these infections was 75% at 1 year, 67% at 1.5 years and 58% at 2 years on LVAS. The most significant organism was Staphylococcus aureus (Fig. 2) . Infections were treated with systemic and local anti-microbial therapy and lavage. In three patients, the infected valved conduit was replaced. No infection of the blood contact surface of the LVAS pump was diagnosed.
|
|
|
|
| 4. Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
One of the main features of the current LVAS recipients lives, is the large proportion of time spent within their own community of friends and relatives, leading self reliant lives. This was not initially expected as evidenced by the requirement for a qualified care-giver as part of the United States Food and Drugs Administration pre-market study. However, the autonomy of the Novacor LVAS, coupled with the high level of system reliability has made the requirement for a care-giver unnecessary. This has had an important impact on both quality of life and overall resource use. Whilst there have been no prospective, scientific quality of life studies carried out in this cohort of patients, the individual center experiences are replete with anecdotal accounts supporting a significantly-improved quality of life [7]. This is also a consequence of the user-friendly system design, the relatively low risk of life threatening complications and the quality of physical rehabilitation of the recipients after only a few weeks.
The results presented here do not imply that the therapy is perfect. The frequency of unscheduled re-hospitalizations impacts on life quality and on resource use, and efforts are underway to reduce complication rates, particularly with respect to infection and embolism. Limitations in system biocompatibility, implant size, dead spaces and the percutaneous lead contribute to device-related infection. Patient selection and optimal implant timing also impact on infection since long-stay ICU patients, with significant secondary organ failure are exposed to nosocomial infections [8]. Meticulous surgical practice, analogous to that used with large orthopaedic prostheses, also have a role to play.
The risk of embolic events remains a continuing concern. The rate of neurological events in the total cohort of patients has been reduced by 50%, when compared to the earlier experience [6,9]. This is due to the identification of one of the main sources of embolism, associated with the inadequate healing process in the original inflow conduit [10]. The development of a friable, easily detachable neo-intima has been substantially reduced by changes in the physical characteristics of the new inflow conduit: reduced compliance, elimination of graft crimp and shorter length, which result in improved flow characteristics at the luminal wall [11]. In addition, anticoagulation and anti aggregant therapies have been adjusted to the specific requirements of prolonged activation of the biological cascades. Further reductions in the risk of embolism should be obtained by the ongoing use of more biocompatible blood contacting surfaces.
The present experience suggests a new device-assisted medical therapy is evolving for patients with advanced cardiac failure. Analysis of patient selection and implant timing have has demonstrated that significant improvements in current long term results are easily attainable [12]. This suggests that one-year survival rates of Novacor LVAS recipients should compare favorably with those obtained with optimal medical therapy [13]. While quality of life has been substantially improved, the remaining clinical debate revolves around continuing medical therapy and selection of patients who are most likely to benefit from this therapeutic intervention.
| Footnotes |
|---|
1 Jansen and Wheeldon are employees of Edwards Lifesciences. Loisance and Portner have a consulting agreement with Edwards Lifesciences. ![]()
| Appendix A |
|---|
|
|
|---|
University Hospital Graz, Austria (K.-H. Tscheliessnigg), University Hospital Helsinki, Finland (J. Sipponen), Hospital La Timone, Marseilles, France (T. Mesana), Hospital Broussais, Paris, France (A. Carpentier), Hospital Henri Mondor Creteil, France (D.Y. Loisance), Hospital La Pitié Salpétrière, Paris, France (Pavie), Heart Center North Rhine Westfalia, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany (R. Koerfer), German Heart Center Berlin (A. Hetzer), Humboldt Univerity Hospital Charité Berlin, Germany (W. Konertz), University Hospital Freiburg, Germany (F. Beyersdorf), Hospital Grolßhadern, Munich, Germany (B. Reichart), Westfalian Wilhelms University Hospital Münster, Germany (H.H. Scheld), IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, University of Pavia, Italy (M. Vigano), University Hospital Verona, Italy (G. Faggian), Hospital Niguarda Ca Granda, Milano, Italy (E. Vitali), University Hospital Padova, Italy (D. Casarotto).
| Appendix B Conference discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Dr Loisance: There were a few who were on balloon pumping, but none of them went on another type of mechanical support system.
Dr Koerfer: Because I think we have at least one who had been about 100 days on the Novacor prior to transplantation and he had about, maybe, 28 or 30 days of the right heart support, and I thought that there should be some.
Dr Loisance: Right heart support at the same time as the Novacor?
Dr Koerfer: Yes.
Dr Loisance: But not before the implantation?
Dr Koerfer: No, no, not before.
Dr Loisance: Yes, but in a 5-min talk I cannot give every detail of the clinical material, and you will find your patient in the manuscript.
Dr G. Tedy (Beirut, Lebanon): What is your anticoagulation protocol for the long term?
Dr Loisance: Every patient is maintained long-term on anticoagulation and antiaggregation therapy, and there are variations between the various centers. But basically they are fully anticoagulated with the INR which targets 2.53.5. They are also antiaggregated, and the dose of aspirin varies from each center to another, (150400 mg/day), it depends.
Dr F. Rosenfeldt (Melbourne, Australia): You mentioned that the pocket infections in your series of patients were trivial. In Melbourne we had one patient who had an absolutely disastrous pocket infection that went on for several months and severely impacted on the recovery of the patient. The patient eventually recovered but the pocket infection was impossible to control with antibiotics.
Dr Loisance: Yes, it's totally true. But there are the patients who live one year and more. So the patient with major pocket infection usually has been transplanted before. So there is a bias in the evaluation of the actual risk of pocket infection in a Novacor recipient presented today.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. L. Holman, J. E. Davies, B. K. Rayburn, D. C. McGiffin, B. A. Foley, R. L. Benza, R. C. Bourge, P. Blood, and J. K. Kirklin Treatment of end-stage heart disease with outpatient ventricular assist devices Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2002; 73(5): 1489 - 1494. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. N. Pierson III, R. Howser, T. Donaldson, W. H. Merrill, R. J. Dignan, D. C. Drinkwater Jr, K. G. Christian, J. Butler, D. Chomsky, J. R. Wilson, et al. Left ventricular assist device implantation via left thoracotomy: alternative to repeat sternotomy Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2002; 73(3): 997 - 999. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |