Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy: Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery

Simon Maltais, Vahtang Tchantchaleishvili, Hartzell V Schaff, Richard C. Daly, Rakesh M. Suri, Joseph A. Dearani, Yan Topilsky, John M. Stulak, Lyle D. Joyce, Soon J. Park

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. Methods: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. Results: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63%), and 33 patients (37%) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7% in the conventional surgery group vs 3% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.65) and at 1 year (22% in the conventional surgery group vs 15% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94% vs 71%, P =.171). Conclusions: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1246-1250
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume147
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Heart-Assist Devices
Cardiomyopathies
Mitral Valve
Therapeutics
Mitral Valve Insufficiency
Group Psychotherapy
Stroke Volume
Survival
Tissue Survival
Mortality
Reoperation
Renal Insufficiency
Research Design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy : Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery. / Maltais, Simon; Tchantchaleishvili, Vahtang; Schaff, Hartzell V; Daly, Richard C.; Suri, Rakesh M.; Dearani, Joseph A.; Topilsky, Yan; Stulak, John M.; Joyce, Lyle D.; Park, Soon J.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 147, No. 4, 2014, p. 1246-1250.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Maltais, Simon ; Tchantchaleishvili, Vahtang ; Schaff, Hartzell V ; Daly, Richard C. ; Suri, Rakesh M. ; Dearani, Joseph A. ; Topilsky, Yan ; Stulak, John M. ; Joyce, Lyle D. ; Park, Soon J. / Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy : Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 147, No. 4. pp. 1246-1250.
@article{ccada6c49c8a4ded8921db5598101f3e,
title = "Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy: Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery",
abstract = "Objectives: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25{\%}) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. Methods: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25{\%}) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. Results: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63{\%}), and 33 patients (37{\%}) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7{\%} in the conventional surgery group vs 3{\%} in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.65) and at 1 year (22{\%} in the conventional surgery group vs 15{\%} in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94{\%} vs 71{\%}, P =.171). Conclusions: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.",
author = "Simon Maltais and Vahtang Tchantchaleishvili and Schaff, {Hartzell V} and Daly, {Richard C.} and Suri, {Rakesh M.} and Dearani, {Joseph A.} and Yan Topilsky and Stulak, {John M.} and Joyce, {Lyle D.} and Park, {Soon J.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.012",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "147",
pages = "1246--1250",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy

T2 - Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery

AU - Maltais, Simon

AU - Tchantchaleishvili, Vahtang

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

AU - Daly, Richard C.

AU - Suri, Rakesh M.

AU - Dearani, Joseph A.

AU - Topilsky, Yan

AU - Stulak, John M.

AU - Joyce, Lyle D.

AU - Park, Soon J.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Objectives: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. Methods: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. Results: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63%), and 33 patients (37%) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7% in the conventional surgery group vs 3% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.65) and at 1 year (22% in the conventional surgery group vs 15% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94% vs 71%, P =.171). Conclusions: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.

AB - Objectives: Patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe ischemic mitral regurgitation have a poor survival with medical therapy alone. Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy is reserved for patients who are too high risk for conventional surgery. We evaluated our outcomes with conventional surgery within this population and the comparative effectiveness of these 2 therapies. Methods: We identified patients who underwent conventional surgery or left ventricular assist device as destination therapy for severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <25%) and severe mitral regurgitation. The era for conventional surgery spanned from 1993 to 2009 and from 2007 to 2011 for left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. We compared baseline patient characteristics and outcomes in terms of end-organ function and survival. Results: A total of 88 patients were identified; 55 patients underwent conventional surgery (63%), and 33 patients (37%) received a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy. Patients who received left ventricular assist device as destination therapy had the increased prevalence of renal failure, inotrope dependency, and intra-aortic balloon support. Patients undergoing conventional surgery required longer ventilatory support, and patients receiving a left ventricular assist device required more reoperation for bleeding. Mortality rates were similar between the 2 groups at 30 days (7% in the conventional surgery group vs 3% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.65) and at 1 year (22% in the conventional surgery group vs 15% in the left ventricular assist device as destination therapy group, P =.58). There was a trend toward improved survival in patients receiving a left ventricular assist device compared with the propensity-matched groups at 1 year (94% vs 71%, P =.171). Conclusions: The operative mortality and early survival after conventional surgery seem to be acceptable. For inoperable or prohibitive-risk patients, left ventricular assist device as destination therapy can be offered with similar outcomes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84896547064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84896547064&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.04.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 23764411

AN - SCOPUS:84896547064

VL - 147

SP - 1246

EP - 1250

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 4

ER -