Suppr超能文献

微创手术改善心源性休克患者左心室辅助装置手术的预后。

Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock.

作者信息

Wert Leonhard, Chatterjee Anamika, Dogan Günes, Hanke Jasmin S, Boethig Dietmar, Tümler Kirstin A, Napp L Christian, Berliner Dominik, Feldmann Christina, Kuehn Christian, Martens Andreas, Shrestha Malakh L, Haverich Axel, Schmitto Jan D

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.

出版信息

J Thorac Dis. 2018 Jun;10(Suppl 15):S1696-S1702. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.27.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) (HVAD, Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) implantation is already a widely accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure (HF) but also still considered as a rescue therapy for patients suffering from cardiogenic shock. Standard LVAD implantation techniques are often associated with high mortality rates and can result in severe complications, like bleeding or right heart failure (RHF). The aim of our study was to assess the outcome of Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 patients (so called "crash and burn" patients) undergoing a LVAD implantation by standard or less invasive surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective evaluation of the 1-year outcome of 32 consecutive HF patients in cardiogenic shock, who underwent LVAD implantation in our institution. A total of 32 INTERMACS 1 patients were emergently operated. Fourteen patients (group A) were operated by using the "Hannover-VAD-technique", which is widely known to be less invasive (upper hemisternotomy and a left-sided anterolateral thoracotomy). In contrast, 18 patients (group B) were implanted with LVAD by using the standard technique (full sternotomy). The primary endpoint was survival after 1 year without device-related re-operations. Secondary endpoints included combined analyses of rates of RHF, respiratory failure and bleeding during the trial period.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Survival after 1 year was higher in group A (69.7% 50.0%). Technique-related adverse events (AEs) were also lower in the minimally invasive group, including a lower RHF (35.7% 61.1%) and of further postoperative bleeding requiring surgery (14.3% 33.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

LVAD surgery in INTERMACS 1 patients is associated with remarkably good outcome considering the already very high mortality of those patients, and compared to previously reported surgical outcomes. Our study indicates that minimally invasive LVAD implantation in cardiogenic shock decreases mortality and the incidence of postoperative AEs.

摘要

背景

左心室辅助装置(LVAD)(HeartWare心室辅助系统,美敦力公司,明尼阿波利斯,明尼苏达州,美国)植入术已成为终末期心力衰竭(HF)广泛接受的治疗选择,但仍被视为心源性休克患者的抢救治疗方法。标准的LVAD植入技术常伴随着高死亡率,并可能导致严重并发症,如出血或右心衰竭(RHF)。我们研究的目的是评估通过标准或微创外科手术进行LVAD植入的机构间机械辅助循环支持注册研究(INTERMACS)1级患者(即所谓的“濒死”患者)的预后。

方法

我们对在我院接受LVAD植入的32例连续性心源性休克HF患者的1年预后进行了回顾性评估。共有32例INTERMACS 1级患者接受了急诊手术。14例患者(A组)采用“汉诺威VAD技术”进行手术,该技术以微创性广为人知(上半胸骨切开术和左侧前外侧开胸术)。相比之下,18例患者(B组)采用标准技术(全胸骨切开术)植入LVAD。主要终点是1年后无装置相关再次手术的生存率。次要终点包括试验期间RHF、呼吸衰竭和出血发生率的综合分析。

结果

两组的基线特征相似。A组1年后的生存率更高(69.7%对50.0%)。微创组的技术相关不良事件(AE)也更低,包括较低的RHF发生率(35.7%对61.1%)和需要手术的进一步术后出血发生率(14.3%对33.3%)。

结论

考虑到INTERMACS 1级患者本已很高的死亡率,与先前报道的手术结果相比,LVAD手术的预后非常好。我们的研究表明,在心源性休克患者中进行微创LVAD植入可降低死亡率和术后AE的发生率。

相似文献

1
Minimally invasive surgery improves outcome of left ventricular assist device surgery in cardiogenic shock.
J Thorac Dis. 2018 Jun;10(Suppl 15):S1696-S1702. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.27.
2
Less invasive surgical implant strategy and right heart failure after LVAD implantation.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2021 Apr;40(4):289-297. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2021.01.005. Epub 2021 Jan 12.
3
Less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation may reduce right ventricular failure.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Oct 1;29(4):592-598. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz143.
4
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to durable left ventricular assist device implantation in INTERMACS-1 patients.
J Artif Organs. 2022 Mar;25(1):16-23. doi: 10.1007/s10047-021-01275-3. Epub 2021 May 13.
6
Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Comparative Study.
Artif Organs. 2018 Dec;42(12):1125-1131. doi: 10.1111/aor.13269. Epub 2018 Nov 15.
7
Outcome of Temporary Circulatory Support As a Bridge-to-Left Ventricular Assist Device Strategy in Cardiogenic Shock Patients.
Crit Care Med. 2022 May 1;50(5):e426-e433. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005424. Epub 2022 Jan 3.
9
Right heart failure and "failure to thrive" after left ventricular assist device: clinical predictors and outcomes.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011 Aug;30(8):888-95. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.03.006. Epub 2011 Apr 29.
10
Left ventricular assist devices: an evidence-based analysis.
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2004;4(3):1-69. Epub 2004 Mar 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Impact of pump position on postoperative outcomes in less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Aug 15;12:1591653. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1591653. eCollection 2025.
2
Heart Transplant and Ventricular Assist: Cardiac Surgery and Heart Failure Perspective.
US Cardiol. 2021 Sep 24;15:e16. doi: 10.15420/usc.2021.11. eCollection 2021.
4
Left ventricular assist device implants in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: do we need cardiopulmonary bypass?
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2022 Mar 31;34(4):676-682. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivab311.
5
Less-invasive tools and technique for fully magnetically levitated centrifugal pump implantation.
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Mar;10(2):289-291. doi: 10.21037/acs-2020-cfmcs-32.
6
Sex differences in outcomes following less-invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Mar;10(2):255-267. doi: 10.21037/acs-2020-cfmcs-21.
7
Minimally invasive versus conventional continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation for heart failure: a meta-analysis.
Heart Fail Rev. 2022 Jul;27(4):1053-1061. doi: 10.1007/s10741-021-10102-z. Epub 2021 Apr 3.
8
Ventricular assist devices implantation: surgical assessment and technical strategies.
Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2021 Feb;11(1):277-291. doi: 10.21037/cdt-20-325.
10
Extracorporeal life support to ventricular assist device: potential benefits of sternal-sparing approach.
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Nov;11(11):4790-4797. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.10.21.

本文引用的文献

1
Minimally-invasive LVAD Implantation: State of the Art.
Curr Cardiol Rev. 2015;11(3):246-51. doi: 10.2174/1573403x1103150514151750.
2
Sixth INTERMACS annual report: a 10,000-patient database.
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2014 Jun;33(6):555-64. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2014.04.010. Epub 2014 Apr 21.
3
Increase in left ventricular assist device thrombosis.
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370(15):1463-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1401768.
4
Clinical variability within the INTERMACS 1 profile: implications for treatment options.
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2014 May;29(3):244-9. doi: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000066.
7
Major bleeding during HeartMate II support.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Dec 10;62(23):2188-96. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.089. Epub 2013 Aug 28.
8
Long-term mechanical circulatory support (destination therapy): on track to compete with heart transplantation?
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Sep;144(3):584-603; discussion 597-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.05.044. Epub 2012 Jul 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验