Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Ala 35294-0007, USA.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Aug;146(2):437-41.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.02.018. Epub 2013 Mar 13.
The present study compared the interval until device exchange or death from pump-related failure in patients with pulsatile versus continuous flow left ventricular assist devices.
Data from Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (June 23, 2006, to March 31, 2011) compared the durability of implanted pulsatile and continuous flow left ventricular assist devices. The durability issues included pump replacement for infection, thrombosis-hemolysis, driveline failure, or pump drive unit failure, and death from driveline or pump drive unit failure.
A total of 3302 left ventricular assist devices were implanted (486 pulsatile, 2816 continuous flow) and 98 pump exchanges or deaths from durability issues (46 pulsatile, 52 continuous flow; 3% of implants). The interval to device issue was greater for the continuous flow than for the pulsatile devices (P < .001). A comparisons of the causes for pump exchange or pump-related death showed (1) greater freedom from pump failure in the continuous flow compared with the pulsatile left ventricular assist devices (10 events/2816 continuous flow implants vs 39 events/486 pulsatile implants; P < .0001); (2) similar exchange or pump-related death for driveline failure (1/486 pulsatile vs 7/2816 continuous flow; P = .82); (3) similar exchange or pump-related death for thrombosis-hemolysis (2/486 pulsatile vs 28/2816 continuous flow; P = .25); and (4) fewer exchanges or pump-related deaths from infection in continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (4/486 pulsatile vs 7/2816 continuous flow; P = .034). Competing outcomes analysis corroborated this finding, with 54% of continuous flow versus 23% of pulsatile patients alive and receiving support at 12 months after implantation.
The Analysis of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support data showed greater durability for continuous flow than for pulsatile left ventricular assist devices. Even longer durations of support can be expected if pump durability continues to improve.
本研究比较了搏动性与连续性左心室辅助装置患者之间,直至因泵相关故障而更换设备或死亡的时间间隔。
利用机构间机械循环支持注册研究(2006 年 6 月 23 日至 2011 年 3 月 31 日)的数据,比较了植入式搏动性和连续性左心室辅助装置的耐用性。耐用性问题包括因感染、血栓形成-溶血、驱动线故障或泵驱动单元故障而更换泵,以及因驱动线或泵驱动单元故障而死亡。
共植入 3302 个左心室辅助装置(486 个搏动性,2816 个连续性),有 98 例因耐用性问题而更换设备或死亡(46 例搏动性,52 例连续性;占植入物的 3%)。与搏动性装置相比,连续性装置发生设备问题的时间间隔更大(P<.001)。对泵更换或与泵相关的死亡原因进行比较显示:(1)与搏动性左心室辅助装置相比,连续性装置的泵故障发生率较低(10 例/2816 例连续性装置植入物与 39 例/486 例搏动性装置植入物;P<.0001);(2)驱动线故障的设备更换或与泵相关的死亡相似(1/486 例搏动性与 7/2816 例连续性;P=.82);(3)血栓形成-溶血的设备更换或与泵相关的死亡相似(2/486 例搏动性与 28/2816 例连续性;P=.25);(4)连续性左心室辅助装置感染引起的设备更换或与泵相关的死亡较少(4/486 例搏动性与 7/2816 例连续性;P=.034)。竞争风险分析证实了这一发现,植入后 12 个月,连续性装置有 54%的患者存活并接受支持,而搏动性装置仅有 23%。
机构间机械循环支持注册研究数据分析显示,连续性左心室辅助装置的耐用性优于搏动性。如果泵的耐用性继续提高,预计可以提供更长时间的支持。