• Nikolay Dranishnikov, Alexander Stepanenko, Evgenij V Potapov, Michael Dandel, Henryk Siniawski, Alexander Mladenow, Michael Hübler, Onnen Grauhan, Yuguo Weng, Thomas Krabatsch, Roland Hetzer, and Marian Kukucka.
• Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Deutsches Herzzentrum Berlin, Berlin, Germany. dranishnikov@dhzb.de
• Int J Artif Organs. 2012 Jul 1;35(7):489-94.

IntroductionAortic valve regurgitation or the presence of a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis is a relative contraindication for implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). However, concomitant aortic valve replacement by a biological prosthesis is one of the options in this situation. We analyzed our recent experience with left ventricular assist device implantation and concomitant aortic valve replacement.MethodsBetween January 1, 2008 and January 15, 2012, 318 adult patients (>18 years old) were supported with a long-term implantable LVAD in our institution. In 19, simultaneous aortic valve replacement (6 redo and 13 primary procedures) was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to INTERMACS (IM) level: Group 1 (n = 7) consisted of patients with IM level 1-2 and Group 2 (n = 12) of IM level 3-4 patients. As a control cohort we analyzed all LVAD recipients during the study period (n = 299, study group excluded). The control cohort was similarly divided into two groups according to the IM level: Group 3 (n = 162) consisted of patients with IM level 1-2 and Group 4 (n = 137) of those with IM level 3-5. Perioperative data and outcomes in all groups were retrospectively analyzed and compared (Group 1 compared to Group 3; and Group 2 to Group 4).ResultsIn study Groups 1 and 2 all patients were male; in Groups 3 and 4, 80% and 88% respectively were male. Median age distribution in Groups was 55, 61, 54, and 57 years respectively. Patients from Group 2 were significantly older than those from Group 4 (p = 0.039). Body mass index was significantly lower in Group 1 than in Group 3 (p = 0.033). Cardio-pulmonary bypass time was significantly longer in Groups 1 and 2 compared with Groups 3 and 4 respectively (p=0.001). Patients from Group 1 had a trend more often to develop right ventricular failure requiring a right ventricular assist device (RVAD) than those in Group 3 (p = 0.09). Intensive care unit stay duration of mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality in Group 1 were significantly higher than in Group 3 (p = 0.025, p = 0.005, p = 0.038). Patients from Group 2 had similar outcomes compared to those from Group 4.ConclusionsIn stable patients, simultaneous aortic valve replacement and LVAD implantation are not associated with an impaired outcome. In patients with cardiogenic shock an additional aortic valve replacement may impair outcome; therefore alternative techniques should be considered.

43 keywords...

hide…