Mechanical circulatory support: reality and dreams experience of a single center.

Because of the increasing number of patients waiting for heart transplantation and the decreasing number of donor organs, mechanical circulatory support has become a generally accepted therapeutic option. Several high-tech devices developed in the last 15 years differ in terms of location, kind of support, and driving units. They are suitable for different patients and their therapeutics objectives. Based on 13 years of experience, we developed a specific protocol for selection and management of patients and devices. Six hundred two patients have received mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in our institution since 1987. The indication spectrum includes cardiogenic shock for various reasons: acute myocarditis, right heart failure, acute rejection and postcardiotomy heart failure, alternative to transplantation, and bridge to recovery. Eight different systems are in use at our center. The extracorporeal devices, the Biomedicus centrifugal pump (n = 169) and the Abiomed BVS 5000 (n = 92) are used for short-term support. The Thoratec VAD (n = 179), and Medos HIA-VAD (n = 10) located in paracorporeal position preferably used for midterm support. Novacor LVAS (n= 96), and HeartMate (n = 58) are partially implantable systems used for long-term ventricular assistance in patients who did not require biventricular support. The advantage of the implantable devices is the option of discharging patients under support if they fulfill special criteria before being discharged to home. Eighty-five LVAD patients were discharged home with support, Novacor (n = 52), HeartMate (n = 27), ThoratecTLC-II (n = 8), Lionheart (n = 3) fulfill our criteria for being discharged home while on support. Careful postoperative patient management does not exclude a variety of complications. Bleeding: occurred in 22-35% of patients, right heart failure in 15-26%, neurologic disorder in 7-28%, infection in 7-30%, and liver failure in 11-20%. Complications varied with different devices, and the patients' preoperative conditions. Eighty-five patients fulfilled the criteria of our out of hospital program (OOH) and were discharged from hospital for a mean period of 184 days. Readmission was necessary for complications caused by thromboembolism and infection. This report describes our patient device selection criteria as a bridge to transplant setting.

The time course of natriuretic hormones as plasma markers of myocardial recovery in heart transplant candidates during ventricular assist device support reveals differences among device types.

BACKGROUND: The natriuretic hormones ANP and BNP are expressed differently in the myocardium. Both hormones have compensatory diuretic activity during heart failure. Mechanical stretch of the myocardial walls induces the expression of these hormones. In failing human myocardium, both ANP and BNP are transcribed in the ventricular myocardium in high amounts. We measured the plasma concentrations of ANP and BNP in patients supported by various ventricular assist devices (VADs) at various times. We analyzed the time courses of ANP and BNP to determine (1) the time scale of their down-regulation as a marker of putative myocardial recovery, (2) their steady-state levels under VAD support and (3) differences caused by various VAD devices. METHODS: We analyzed ANP and BNP using commercially available radioimmune assays. We analyzed the time courses of patients supported by Thoratec (THO) LVAD (n = 8), TCI Heartmate (TCI) (n = 6), Novacor (NOV) (n = 7), and Lionheart (LIO) (n = 3). RESULTS: Patients supported with NOV and some patients with TCI showed down-regulation of BNP to a steady-state level at 30 to 50 days, following a single exponential decay. In contrast, patients supported by THO or LIO did not reveal a determined time course of the natriuretic hormones. Only a few patients reached normal plasma values during VAD support. CONCLUSION: The time courses of ANP and BNP differ among VAD types because of construction and/or driving mode, which might be important when considering patients for weaning from VAD without heart transplant.

Midterm follow-up of patients discharged from hospital under left ventricular assistance.

BACKGROUND: Against the background of increasing demand for long-term mechanical circulatory support, discharging patients to their homes while on assist devices becomes more and more important. This report describes the midterm follow-up of 66 patients who were allowed to leave the hospital under left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support with Novacor or HeartMate systems. Between May 1994 and January 2000, 66 patients (9 women, 57 men, between 15 and 68 years old) under LVAD support fulfilled our criteria for being discharged home on the device. Intent to treat comprised bridging to transplantation in 59 patients, bridging to recovery in 5 patients, and alternative to transplantation in 2 patients. Forty-four patients received support with Novacor, 18 patients with the VE HeartMate, 2 patients with centrifugal pumps and Novacor, and 1 patient each with Novacor and Thoratec/Medos HIA-VAD. The mean out-of-hospital (OOH) follow-up period was 162 +/- 187 days, with a cumulative OOH experience of 30 patient years. Twenty-nine patients were not readmitted, and 37 patients were readmitted 54 times (23 patients were readmitted once, 11 patients twice, and 3 patients 3 times). The primary reasons for readmission included neurologic disorders and infection complications. At 229 days, 50% of all patients were free from readmission. The readmission rate was 1.8 patient/year. Sixteen patients died while on LVAD support (24%). Our midterm follow-up results show the safety and efficacy of this therapeutic option. Acceptable hospital readmission rates strongly support the future use of this technology as an alternative to transplantation in managing end-stage heart failure patients.