OUTCOMES WITH TEMPORARY MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT PRIOR TO
MINIMALLY-INVASIVE CENTRIFUGAL LEFT VENTRICULAR ASSIST DEVICE
Abstract
Background: Despite improved survival and morbidity after durable left
ventricular assist device (dLVAD), outcomes for cardiogenic shock
patients are suboptimal. Temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS)
can permit optimization prior to dLVAD. Excellent outcomes have been
observed using minimally-invasive dLVAD implantation. However, some feel
tMCS contraindicates this approach. To evaluate whether left
thoracotomy/hemisternotomy (LTHS) dLVAD placement is safe in this
setting, we compared patients who did and did not require tMCS. Methods:
Outcomes for patients receiving dLVADs via LTHS were compared among
those bridged with ECMO, IABP, or no tMCS. We evaluated demographics,
comorbidities, laboratory and hemodynamic data, and intra- and
postoperative outcomes. Results: Eighty-three patients underwent LTHS
dLVAD placement. Fifty did not require tMCS, while 22 (26%) required
IABP, and 11 (13%) ECMO. Non-tMCS patients were primarily INTERMACS 3
(56%), while IABP recipients were mainly INTERMACS 2 (45%). All ECMO
patients were INTERMACS 1. Patients with tMCS had worse end-organ
function. Operative outcomes were similar except more concomitant
procedures and red-cell transfusions in ECMO patients. ICU and hospital
length of stay and inotrope duration were also similar. There were no
differences in bleeding, stroke, and infection rates. Three- and
twelve-month survival were: No tMCS: 94%, 86%; IABP: 100%, 88%;
ECMO: 81%, 81% (p=0.45). Conclusions: Patients with cardiogenic shock
can safely undergo LTHS dLVAD implantation after stabilization with ECMO
or IABP. Outcomes and complications in these patients were comparable to
a less severely ill cohort without tMCS.