From the Department of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Center for Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
ASAIO J. 2021 Jan 1;67(1):47-52. doi: 10.1097/MAT.0000000000001165.
Despite increasing popularity and multiple postulated benefits, less invasive (LIS) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation has not been sufficiently compared with standard full sternotomy (FS). We report the outcomes of a propensity score analysis designed to compare LIS and FS LVAD implantation, with perioperative blood product use, adverse event rates, and mortality as primary objective. From September 2010 to August 2016, 159 consecutive patients received a Medtronic HVAD or Abbott HeartMate 3 LVAD via a FS or LIS approach. Outcomes were analyzed using proportional hazard Cox regression, with risk adjustment based on a LIS approach propensity score model computed from demographics, risk factors, and operative covariates. Seventy-five patients were matched and compared (HVAD 83% [n = 62]; LIS approach 43% [n = 32]; mean age 60 ± 12 years; 89% [n = 67] male; 48% [n = 36] ischemic cardiomyopathy [ICMP]; 37% [n = 28]). Patient groups were comparable with regard to preoperative patient characteristics. Less invasive LVAD implantation was successful in all patients with no intraoperative conversions. In-hospital mortality was 16% in both groups, despite 37% Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support Level I patients. Overall, 28% of the LIS patients did not receive any blood products intraoperatively, whereas, in the FS group, only two patients (5%) did not require the administration of blood products (p = 0.000). This was also a significant finding in the overall perioperative phase in which seven LIS patients (22%) who not receive any blood products versus two FS patients (5%; p = 0.033). Otherwise, outcomes were comparable. Less invasive LVAD implantation is a feasible, safe, and reduces blood product use.
尽管微创(LIS)左心室辅助装置(LVAD)植入术越来越受欢迎,且被多次推测有多种益处,但与标准的完全胸骨切开术(FS)相比,其应用仍不够广泛。我们报告了一项倾向评分分析的结果,该分析旨在比较 LIS 和 FS LVAD 植入术的结果,以围手术期血液制品使用、不良事件发生率和死亡率为主要目标。2010 年 9 月至 2016 年 8 月,159 例连续患者通过 FS 或 LIS 途径接受了美敦力 HVAD 或雅培 HeartMate 3 LVAD。使用比例风险 Cox 回归分析结果,根据 LIS 方法倾向评分模型对风险进行调整,该模型由人口统计学、危险因素和手术协变量计算得出。对 75 例患者进行了匹配和比较(HVAD 占 83%[n=62];LIS 方法占 43%[n=32];平均年龄 60±12 岁;89%[n=67]为男性;48%[n=36]为缺血性心肌病[ICMP];37%[n=28]为扩张型心肌病)。两组患者的术前患者特征相似。所有患者的微创 LVAD 植入均成功,无术中转换。两组的院内死亡率均为 16%,尽管有 37%的机构间机械循环支持水平 I 患者。总体而言,32 例 LIS 患者中有 28%在术中未使用任何血液制品,而在 FS 组中,只有 2 名患者(5%)未使用血液制品(p=0.000)。这在整个围手术期阶段也是一个显著发现,7 例 LIS 患者(22%)未使用任何血液制品,而 2 例 FS 患者(5%)(p=0.033)。否则,结果相似。微创 LVAD 植入术是一种可行、安全的方法,可以减少血液制品的使用。