Tscharre Maximilian, Wittmann Franziska, Kitzmantl Daniela, Lee Silvia, Eichelberger Beate, Wadowski Patricia P, Laufer Günther, Wiedemann Dominik, Forstner-Bergauer Birgit, Ay Cihan, Panzer Simon, Zimpfer Daniel, Gremmel Thomas
Department of Internal Medicine, Cardiology and Nephrology, Landesklinikum Wiener Neustadt, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Department of Internal Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Platelets. 2022 Feb 17;33(2):249-256. doi: 10.1080/09537104.2021.1881950. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
Left-ventricular assist devices (LVADs) improve outcomes in end-stage heart failure patients. Two centrifugal-flow LVAD systems are currently approved, HeartMate 3 (HM3) and Medtronic/Heartware HVAD (HVAD). Clinical findings suggest differences in thrombogenicity between both systems. We compared markers of platelet activation and aggregation between HM3 and HVAD. We prospectively included 59 LVAD patients (40 HM3, 19 HVAD). Platelet -selectin expression, activated glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa and monocyte-platelet aggregates (MPA) were assessed by flow-cytometry. Platelet aggregation was measured by light-transmission aggregometry (LTA) and multiple-electrode aggregometry (MEA). Von-Willebrand factor (VWF) antigen (VWF:Ag), VWF activity (VWF:Ac), and VWF multimer pattern analysis were determined. Soluble -selectin (sP-selectin) was measured with an enzyme-linked immunoassay. -selectin, GPIIb/IIIa and MPA levels and in response to arachidonic acid, adenosine diphosphate, and thrombin receptor activating peptide were similar between HM3 and HVAD (all > .05). Likewise, agonist-inducible platelet aggregation by LTA and MEA did not differ between HM3 and HVAD (all > .05). VWF:Ag levels and FVIII:C were similar between both systems (both > .05), but patients with HVAD had significantly lower VWF:Ac ( = .011) and reduced large VWF multimers ( = .013). Finally, sP-selectin levels were similar in patients with HVAD and HM3 ( = .845). In conclusion, on-treatment platelet activation and aggregation are similar in HM3 and HVAD patients. Potential clinical implications of observed differences in VWF profiles between both LVAD systems need to be addressed in future clinical trials.
左心室辅助装置(LVADs)可改善终末期心力衰竭患者的预后。目前有两种离心式LVAD系统已获批准,即HeartMate 3(HM3)和美敦力/Heartware HVAD(HVAD)。临床研究结果表明这两种系统在血栓形成倾向方面存在差异。我们比较了HM3和HVAD之间血小板活化和聚集的标志物。我们前瞻性纳入了59例LVAD患者(40例HM3,19例HVAD)。通过流式细胞术评估血小板选择素表达、活化糖蛋白(GP)IIb/IIIa和单核细胞 - 血小板聚集体(MPA)。通过光透射聚集法(LTA)和多电极聚集法(MEA)测量血小板聚集。测定血管性血友病因子(VWF)抗原(VWF:Ag)、VWF活性(VWF:Ac)和VWF多聚体模式分析。用酶联免疫吸附测定法测量可溶性选择素(sP - 选择素)。HM3和HVAD之间的选择素、GPIIb/IIIa和MPA水平以及对花生四烯酸、二磷酸腺苷和凝血酶受体激活肽的反应相似(均P>0.05)。同样,LTA和MEA诱导的激动剂诱导血小板聚集在HM3和HVAD之间没有差异(均P>0.05)。两种系统之间的VWF:Ag水平和FVIII:C相似(均P>0.05),但HVAD患者的VWF:Ac显著降低(P = 0.011)且大VWF多聚体减少(P = 0.013)。最后,HVAD和HM3患者的sP - 选择素水平相似(P = 0.845)。总之,接受治疗的HM3和HVAD患者的血小板活化和聚集相似。两种LVAD系统之间观察到的VWF谱差异的潜在临床意义需要在未来的临床试验中加以解决。