Key result
Concomitant mitral valve replacement or repair during cf-LVAD implantation resulted in a significantly greater decrement in pulmonary vascular resistance compared to cf-LVAD alone (59.4% vs 35.2%, p=0.01).
Why the study?
Does concomitant mitral valve replacement or repair reduce pulmonary vascular resistance in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation?
Cohort (n=57)
Does concomitant mitral valve replacement or repair reduce pulmonary vascular resistance in patients undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation?
Absolute Event Rate: 59.4% vs 35.2%
p-value: p=0.01
Concomitant mitral valve repair or replacement during cf-LVAD implantation significantly reduces pulmonary vascular resistance, which may help ineligible patients become candidates for heart transplantation.
Concomitant mitral intervention was associated with greater PVR reduction in cf-LVAD recipients; hypothesis-generating for transplant eligibility and requires prospective validation.
We hypothesized that the addition of mitral valve replacement or repair (MVR) to implantation of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (cf-LVAD) may further decrease pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) over Heartmate II (HMII) implantation alone. Patients undergoing MVR with concomitant HMII implantation were compared with those undergoing HMII implantation alone. Of the 57 patients undergoing cf-LVAD implantation, 21 (36.8%) underwent concomitant MVR and 36 (63.2%) underwent cf-LVAD implantation alone. Patients receiving MVR had greater decrement in PVR (59.4% vs. 35.2%, p = 0.01). Decrease in end-diastolic diameter was greater for patients receiving MVR but did not reach statistical significance (18.2 vs. 13.5 mm, p = 0.33). Duration of mechanical ventilation (121.6 vs. 181.4 hours, p = 0.45) and inotropic support (162.4 vs. 153.2 hours, p = 0.86), change in creatinine (0.19 vs. -0.26 mg/dl, p = 0.34), increase in bilirubin (2.54 vs. 1.55 mg/dl, p = 0.63), intensive care unit stay (168.0 vs. 231.5 hours, p = 0.38), and overall length of stay (32.0 vs. 42.5 days, p = 0.75) were similar. There was no difference in survival at 3 months (89.7% vs. 83.3%) and 1 year (83.7 vs. 67.3%, p = 0.34). Addition of MVR may result in greater decrement of PVR than HMII implantation alone. This may permit certain patients thought to be ineligible for transplantation to become candidates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taghavi et al. (2013) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (n=57). Concomitant mitral valve replacement or repair (MVR) vs. Heartmate II implantation alone was evaluated on Decrement in pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) (p=0.01). Concomitant mitral valve replacement or repair during cf-LVAD implantation resulted in a significantly greater decrement in pulmonary vascular resistance compared to cf-LVAD alone (59.4% vs 35.2%, p=0.01).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: