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

13 Scopus citations

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 - Apr 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Management of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy: Left ventricular assist device as destination therapy versus conventional bypass and mitral valve surgery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this