scholarly journals Heart Transplantation of Patients with Ventricular Assist Devices: Impact of Normothermic Ex-Vivo Preservation Using Organ Care System Compared with Cold Storage

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuldyz Nurmykhametova ◽  
Rymbay Kaliyev ◽  
Timur Lesbekov ◽  
Serik Bekbossynov ◽  
Makhabbat Bekbossynova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Cold Storage ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ischemic Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care System

Abstract Background: Organ Care System (OCS) minimizes the cold ischemic time and allows for optimization of logistics and meticulous recipient preparation. Impact of normothermic ex-vivo preservation using OCS compared with cold storage (CS) for prolonged heart preservation especially beneficial for high-risk recipients bridged to transplantation with Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS). Methods: Between 2012 and 2018, we performed a retrospective single-center review of prospectively collected data. All patients who underwent heart transplantation with MCS using the OCS Heart (n=25) versus standard cold storage were included in this study. Results: During this period, 300 patients were implanted with left ventricular assisted device (LVAD) and 35 (11.6 %) were bridged to heart transplantation. There was no significant difference in donor and recipient characteristics and risk factors. The Index for Mortality Prediction after Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score was a trend towards higher estimated risk of death at 1y in the OCS group (14.2 vs. 10.8% p= 0.083). Mean total ischemic time during preservation was statistically significantly longer in CS vs OCS group (210 (23) Vs 74.6 (13) min p=0.001). Median ex vivo normothermic heart perfusion time in OCS was 348.4(132; 955) min. There was significant difference in total out of body time between OCS group 423(67) Vs CS group 210(23) min p=0.002). The allografts were reperfused for 73 (33) vs 121 (45) minutes (p=0.01) before disconnection from cardiopulmonary bypass in OCS vs CS group. All patients were alive on the 30th days post implant in CS groups and 96% in OCS group (p=0.5). Conclusion: Normothermic ex-vivo preservation of the allograft during transportation with the organ care system might be beneficial for long-time out of body organ preservation in comparison of cold storage especially for recipients on mechanical circulatory support.

scholarly journals Heart transplantation of patients with ventricular assist devices: impact of normothermic ex-vivo preservation using organ care system compared with cold storage

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rymbay Kaliyev ◽  
Timur Lesbekov ◽  
Serik Bekbossynov ◽  
Zhuldyz Nurmykhametova ◽  
Makhabbat Bekbossynova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Cold Storage ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ischemic Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care System

Abstract Background Organ Care System (OCS) minimizes the cold ischemic time and allows for optimization of logistics and meticulous recipient preparation. Impact of normothermic ex-vivo preservation using OCS compared with cold storage (CS) for prolonged heart preservation especially beneficial for high-risk recipients bridged to transplantation with Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS). Methods Between 2012 and 2018, we performed a retrospective single-center review of prospectively collected data. All patients who underwent heart transplantation with MCS using the OCS Heart (n = 25) versus standard cold storage (n = 10) were included in this study. Results During this period, 353 patients were implanted with left ventricular assisted device (LVAD) and 35 (10%) were bridged to heart transplantation. There was no significant difference in donor and recipient characteristics and risk factors. The Index for Mortality Prediction after Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score was a trend towards higher estimated risk of death at 1y in the OCS group (14.2 vs. 10.8% p = 0.083). Mean total ischemic time during preservation was statistically significantly longer in CS vs OCS group (210 (23) Vs 74.6 (13) min p = 0.001). Median ex vivo normothermic heart perfusion time in OCS was 348.4(132; 955) min. There was significant difference in total out of body time between OCS group 423(67) Vs CS group 210(23) min p = 0.002). All patients were alive on the 30th days post implant in CS groups and 96% in OCS group (p = 0.5). Conclusion Normothermic ex-vivo preservation of the allograft during transportation with the organ care system might be beneficial for long-time out of body organ preservation in comparison of cold storage especially for recipients on mechanical circulatory support.

scholarly journals Heart transplantation of patients with ventricular assist devices: impact of normothermic ex-vivo preservation using organ care system compared with cold storage

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rymbay Kaliyev ◽  
Timur Lesbekov ◽  
Serik Bekbossynov ◽  
Zhuldyz Nurmykhametova ◽  
Makhabbat Bekbossynova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Transplantation ◽  
Cold Storage ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Ischemic Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Care System

Abstract Background: Organ Care System (OCS) minimizes the cold ischemic time and allows for optimization of logistics and meticulous recipient preparation. Impact of normothermic ex-vivo preservation using OCS compared with cold storage (CS) for prolonged heart preservation especially beneficial for high-risk recipients bridged to transplantation with Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS).Methods: Between 2012 and 2018, we performed a retrospective single-center review of prospectively collected data. All patients who underwent heart transplantation with MCS using the OCS Heart (n=25) versus standard cold storage (n=10) were included in this study. Results: During this period, 353 patients were implanted with left ventricular assisted device (LVAD) and 35 (10 %) were bridged to heart transplantation. There was no significant difference in donor and recipient characteristics and risk factors. The Index for Mortality Prediction after Cardiac Transplantation (IMPACT) score was a trend towards higher estimated risk of death at 1y in the OCS group (14.2 vs. 10.8% p= 0.083). Mean total ischemic time during preservation was statistically significantly longer in CS vs OCS group (210 (23) Vs 74.6 (13) min p=0.001). Median ex vivo normothermic heart perfusion time in OCS was 348.4(132; 955) min. There was significant difference in total out of body time between OCS group 423(67) Vs CS group 210(23) min p=0.002). All patients were alive on the 30th days post implant in CS groups and 96% in OCS group (p=0.5).Conclusion: Normothermic ex-vivo preservation of the allograft during transportation with the organ care system might be beneficial for long-time out of body organ preservation in comparison of cold storage especially for recipients on mechanical circulatory support.

Heart transplant outcomes in patients with mechanical circulatory support: cold storage versus normothermic perfusion organ preservation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandro Sponga ◽  
Giovanni Benedetti ◽  
Nunzio Davide de Manna ◽  
Veronica Ferrara ◽  
Igor Vendramin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cold Storage ◽  
Heart Transplant ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
Extracorporeal Life Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Assist Device ◽  
Graft Preservation

Abstract OBJECTIVES Patients with mechanical circulatory support bridged to a heart transplant (HTx) are at higher risk of postoperative graft dysfunction. In this subset, a mode of graft preservation that shortens graft ischaemia should be beneficial. METHODS The outcomes of 38 patients on mechanical circulatory support (extracorporeal life support, left ventricular assist device and biventricular assist device) who received a HTx between 2015 and 2020 were analysed according to the method of graft preservation: cold storage (CS) group, 24 (63%) or ex vivo perfusion (EVP) group, 14 (37%). RESULTS The median age was 57 (range 30–73) vs 64 (35–75) years (P = 0.10); 88% were men (P = 0.28); extracorporeal life support was more frequent in the CS group (54% vs 36%; P = 0.27) versus left ventricular and biventricular assist devices in the EVP group (46% vs 64%; P = 0.27). Clamping time was shorter in the EVP group (P < 0.001) and ischaemic time >4 h was higher in the CS group (P = 0.01). Thirty-day mortality was 13% (0–27%) in the CS group and 0% (P = 0.28) in the EVP group. A significantly lower primary graft failure [7% (0–23%) vs 42% (20–63%); P = 0.03] was observed in the EVP group. Survival at 1 year was 79 ± 8% (63–95%) in the CS group and 84 ± 10% (64–104%) in the EVP group (P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS Our results support the use of ex vivo graft perfusion in patients on mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to a HTx. This technique, by shortening graft ischaemic time, seems to improve post-HTx outcomes.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with concomitant Impella versus concomitant intra-aortic-balloon-pump for cardiogenic shock

Perfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 026765912110339
Author(s):  
Shek-yin Au ◽  
Ka-man Fong ◽  
Chun-Fung Sunny Tsang ◽  
Ka-Chun Alan Chan ◽  
Chi Yuen Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Queen Elizabeth Hospital ◽  
Intra Aortic Balloon Pump ◽  
Membrane Oxygenation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Va Ecmo

Introduction: The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella are left ventricular unloading devices with peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in place and later serve as bridging therapy when VA-ECMO is terminated. We aimed to determine the potential differences in clinical outcomes and rate of complications between the two combinations of mechanical circulatory support. Methods: This was a retrospective, single institutional cohort study conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) of Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong. Inclusion criteria included all patients aged ⩾18 years, who had VA-ECMO support, and who had left ventricular unloading by either IABP or Impella between January 1, 2018 and October 31, 2020. Patients <18 years old, with central VA-ECMO, who did not require left ventricular unloading, or who underwent surgical venting procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was ECMO duration. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in the ICU, hospital LOS, mortality, and complication rate. Results: Fifty-two patients with ECMO + IABP and 14 patients with ECMO + Impella were recruited. No statistically significant difference was observed in terms of ECMO duration (2.5 vs 4.6 days, p = 0.147), ICU LOS (7.7 vs 10.8 days, p = 0.367), and hospital LOS (14.8 vs 16.5 days, p = 0.556) between the two groups. No statistically significant difference was observed in the ECMO, ICU, and hospital mortalities between the two groups. Specific complications related to the ECMO and Impella combination were also noted. Conclusions: Impella was not shown to offer a statistically significant clinical benefit compared with IABP in conjunction with ECMO. Clinicians should be aware of the specific complications of using Impella.

scholarly journals Can mechanical circulatory support be an effective treatment for HFpEF patients?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Einar Gude ◽  
Arnt E. Fiane
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Cavity ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Mechanical Pressure ◽  
Entry Points

AbstractHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasing in prevalence and represents approximately 50% of all heart failure (HF) patients. Patients with this complex clinical scenario, characterized by high filling pressures, and reduced cardiac output (CO) associated with progressive multi-organ involvement, have so far not experienced any significant improvement in quality of life or survival with traditional HF treatment. Left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) have offered a new treatment alternative in terminal heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), providing a unique combination of significant pressure and volume unloading together with an increase in CO. The small left ventricular cavity in HFpEF patients challenges left-sided pressure unloading, and new anatomical entry points need to be explored for mechanical pressure and volume unloading. Optimized and pressure/volume-adjusted mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices for HFrEF patients may conceivably be customized for HFpEF anatomy and hemodynamics. We have developed a long-term MCS device for HFpEF patients with atrial unloading in a pulsed algorithm, leading to a significant reduction of filling pressure, maintenance of pulse pressure, and increase in CO demonstrated in animal testing. In this article, we will discuss HFpEF pathology, hemodynamics, and the principles behind our novel MCS device that may improve symptoms and prognosis in HFpEF patients. Data from mock-loop hemolysis studies, acute, and chronic animal studies will be presented.

Mechanical circulatory support with the Impella 5.0 and the Impella Left Direct pumps for postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles-Henri David ◽  
Astrid Quessard ◽  
Ciro Mastroianni ◽  
Guillaume Hekimian ◽  
Julien Amour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Survival Outcome ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock

Abstract OBJECTIVES Postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) is associated with high mortality rates of 50–80%. Although veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has been used as mechanical circulatory support in patients with PCCS, it is associated with a high rate of complications and poor quality of life. The Impella 5.0 and Impella Left Direct (LD) (Impella 5.0/LD) are minimally invasive left ventricular assist devices that provide effective haemodynamic support resulting in left ventricular unloading and systemic perfusion. Our goal was to describe the outcome of patients with PCCS supported with the Impella 5.0/LD at La Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients supported with the Impella 5.0/LD for PCCS between December 2010 and June 2015. Survival outcome and in-hospital complications were assessed. RESULTS A total of 29 patients (63 ± 14 years, 17% women) with PCCS were supported with the Impella 5.0/LD. At baseline, 69% experienced chronic heart failure, 66% had dilated cardiomyopathy and 57% had valvular disease. The mean EuroSCORE II was 22 ± 17 and the ejection fraction was 28 ± 11%. Most of the patients underwent isolated valve surgery (45%) or isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (38%). The mean duration of Impella support was 9 ± 7 days. Weaning from the Impella was successful in 72.4%, and 58.6% survived to discharge. Recovery of native heart function was observed in 100% of discharged patients. Survival to 30 days and to 1 year from Impella implant was 58.6% and 51.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The Impella 5.0 and the Impella LD represent an excellent treatment option for critically ill patients with PCCS and are associated with favourable survival outcome and native heart recovery.

Development of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices: 55 Years and Counting

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-433
Author(s):  
Emalie Petersen
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Ventricular Assist ◽  
Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices ◽  
Support Devices

Heart failure is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Treatment of this condition increasingly involves mechanical circulatory support devices. Even with optimal medical therapy and use of simple cardiac devices, heart failure often leads to reduced quality of life and a shortened life span, prompting exploration of more advanced treatment approaches. Left ventricular assist devices constitute an effective alternative to cardiac transplantation. These devices are not without complications, however, and their use requires careful cooperative management by the patient’s cardiology team and primary care provider. Left ventricular assist devices have undergone many technological advancements since they were first introduced, and they will continue to evolve. This article reviews the history of different types of left ventricular assist devices, appropriate patient selection, and common complications in order to increase health professionals’ familiarity with these treatment options.

Neuroprotection for Mechanical Circulatory Support

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren E Dunn ◽  
Joshua Z Willey ◽  
Ronald M Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Air Embolism ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Cerebral Air Embolism ◽  
Cerebral Hyperperfusion ◽  
Clinical Scenarios

This chapter examines the adverse neurological events associated with mechanical circulatory support (MCS), which includes left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and percutaneous devices for cardiac disease. The most frequently encountered neurological events are ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke, as well as intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), heart failure and cardiovascular disease. The management of acute cerebrovascular conditions in this population poses unique challenges, given concomitant anticoagulation usage, hemodynamically unstable patients, and lack of randomized controlled trials investigating these clinical scenarios. Other acute neurological events include cerebral hyperperfusion and cerebral air embolism. This chapter describes these complications and their risk factors, and the available evidence-based and institutional management strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document