Department of Cardiac Surgery, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; Cardiac Surgery, Peter Munk Cardiac Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cardiac Surgery, Düsseldorf University Hospital, Dusseldorf, Germany.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022 Dec;164(6):1910-1918.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.12.043. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
Left ventricular assist device has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there is limited evidence showing the effect of the implantation approach on postoperative morbidities and mortality. We aimed to compare left ventricular assist device implantation using conventional sternotomy versus less-invasive surgery including hemi-sternotomy and the minithoracotomy approach.
Between January 2014 and December 2018, 342 consecutive patients underwent left ventricular assist device implantation at 2 high-volume centers. Patient characteristics were prospectively collected. The propensity score method was used to create 2 groups in a 1:1 fashion. A competing risk regression model was used to evaluate time to death adjusting for competing risk of heart transplantation.
The unmatched cohort included 241 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation with the conventional sternotomy technique and 101 patients who underwent left ventricular assist device implantation with the less-invasive surgery technique. Propensity matching produced 2 groups each including 73 patients. In the matched groups, reexploration rate for bleeding was necessary in 17.9% (12/67) in the conventional sternotomy group compared with 4.1% (3/73) the less-invasive surgery group (P = .018). Intensive care unit stay for the less-invasive surgery group was significantly lower than for the sternotomy group (10.5 [interquartile range, 2-25.75] days vs 4 [interquartile range, 2-9.25] days, P = .008), as was hospital length of stay (37 [interquartile range, 27-61] days vs 25.5 [interquartile range, 21-42] days, P = .007). Mortality cumulative incidence for conventional surgery was 24% (95% confidence interval, 14.3-34.8) at 1 year and 26% (95% confidence interval, 15.9-37.4) at 2 years for patients without heart transplantation. Mortality cumulative incidence for less-invasive surgery was 22.5% (95% confidence interval, 12.8-33.8) at 1 year and 25.2% (95% confidence interval, 14.5-37.4) at 2 years for patients without heart transplantation. There was no difference in cumulative mortality incidence when adjusting for competing risk of heart transplantation (subdistribution hazard, 0.904, 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.80, P = .77).
The less-invasive surgery approach is a safe technique for left ventricular assist device implantation. Less-invasive surgery was associated with a significant reduction in the postoperative bleeding complications and duration of hospital stay, with no significant difference in mortality incidence.
左心室辅助装置已被证明是治疗终末期心力衰竭患者的一种安全有效的治疗选择。然而,关于植入方法对术后发病率和死亡率的影响的证据有限。我们旨在比较使用传统胸骨切开术与微创外科手术(包括半胸骨切开术和小开胸术)植入左心室辅助装置的效果。
2014 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月,2 家高容量中心连续 342 例患者接受左心室辅助装置植入术。前瞻性收集患者特征。使用倾向评分法以 1:1 的比例创建 2 组。使用竞争风险回归模型评估调整心脏移植竞争风险后死亡的时间。
未匹配队列包括 241 例接受传统胸骨切开术左心室辅助装置植入术的患者和 101 例接受微创外科手术左心室辅助装置植入术的患者。倾向匹配产生了每组 73 例患者。在匹配组中,传统胸骨切开组有 17.9%(12/67)的患者需要再次探查出血,而微创外科组为 4.1%(3/73)(P=0.018)。微创外科组的重症监护病房住院时间明显低于胸骨切开组(10.5[四分位距,2-25.75]天与 4[四分位距,2-9.25]天,P=0.008),住院时间也明显缩短(37[四分位距,27-61]天与 25.5[四分位距,21-42]天,P=0.007)。无心脏移植的患者中,传统手术的死亡率累积发生率为 1 年时 24%(95%置信区间,14.3-34.8),2 年时为 26%(95%置信区间,15.9-37.4)。无心脏移植的患者中,微创外科的死亡率累积发生率为 1 年时 22.5%(95%置信区间,12.8-33.8),2 年时为 25.2%(95%置信区间,14.5-37.4)。调整心脏移植的竞争风险后,累积死亡率无差异(亚分布风险,0.904,95%置信区间,0.45-1.80,P=0.77)。
微创外科手术是左心室辅助装置植入的一种安全技术。微创外科与术后出血并发症和住院时间明显减少有关,死亡率无显著差异。