TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes of percutaneous temporary biventricular mechanical support
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Weber, Matthew P.
AU - O’Malley, Thomas J.
AU - Choi, Jae H.
AU - Maynes, Elizabeth J.
AU - Prochno, Kyle W.
AU - Austin, Melissa A.
AU - Wood, Chelsey T.
AU - Patel, Sinal
AU - Morris, Rohinton J.
AU - Massey, H. Todd
AU - Tchantchaleishvili, Vakhtang
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - Percutaneous biventricular assist devices (BiVAD) are a recently developed treatment option for severe cardiogenic shock. This systematic review sought to identify indications and outcomes of patients placed on percutaneous BiVAD support. An electronic search was performed to identify all appropriate studies utilizing a percutaneous BiVAD configuration. Fifteen studies comprising of 20 patients were identified. Individual patient survival and outcomes data were combined for statistical analysis. All 20 patients were supported with a microaxial LVAD, 12/20 (60%) of those patients were supported with a microaxial (RMA) right ventricular assist device (RVAD), and the remaining 8/20 (40%) patients were supported with a centrifugal extracorporeal RVAD (RCF). All patients presented with cardiogenic shock, and of these, 12/20 (60%) presented with a non-ischemic etiology vs 8/20 (40%) with ischemic disease. For the RMA group, RVAD support was significantly longer [RMA 5 (IQR 4–7) days vs RCF 1 (IQR 1–2) days, p = 0.03]. Intravascular hemolysis post-BiVAD occurred in three patients (27.3%) [RMA 3 (33.3%) vs RCF 0 (0%), p = 0.94]. Five patients received a durable left ventricular assist device, one patient received a total artificial heart, and one patient underwent a heart transplantation. Estimated 30-day mortality was 15.0%, and 78.6% were discharged alive. Both strategies for percutaneous BiVAD support appear to be viable options for severe cardiogenic shock.
AB - Percutaneous biventricular assist devices (BiVAD) are a recently developed treatment option for severe cardiogenic shock. This systematic review sought to identify indications and outcomes of patients placed on percutaneous BiVAD support. An electronic search was performed to identify all appropriate studies utilizing a percutaneous BiVAD configuration. Fifteen studies comprising of 20 patients were identified. Individual patient survival and outcomes data were combined for statistical analysis. All 20 patients were supported with a microaxial LVAD, 12/20 (60%) of those patients were supported with a microaxial (RMA) right ventricular assist device (RVAD), and the remaining 8/20 (40%) patients were supported with a centrifugal extracorporeal RVAD (RCF). All patients presented with cardiogenic shock, and of these, 12/20 (60%) presented with a non-ischemic etiology vs 8/20 (40%) with ischemic disease. For the RMA group, RVAD support was significantly longer [RMA 5 (IQR 4–7) days vs RCF 1 (IQR 1–2) days, p = 0.03]. Intravascular hemolysis post-BiVAD occurred in three patients (27.3%) [RMA 3 (33.3%) vs RCF 0 (0%), p = 0.94]. Five patients received a durable left ventricular assist device, one patient received a total artificial heart, and one patient underwent a heart transplantation. Estimated 30-day mortality was 15.0%, and 78.6% were discharged alive. Both strategies for percutaneous BiVAD support appear to be viable options for severe cardiogenic shock.
KW - Biventricular assist device
KW - Biventricular heart failure
KW - Centrifugal devices
KW - Microaxial devices
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085361119&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10741-020-09971-7
DO - 10.1007/s10741-020-09971-7
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32458216
AN - SCOPUS:85085361119
SN - 1382-4147
VL - 27
SP - 879
EP - 890
JO - Heart Failure Reviews
JF - Heart Failure Reviews
IS - 3
ER -