Key result
Less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation has the potential to reduce right ventricular failure, cerebrovascular accidents, and reoperation challenges compared to conventional sternotomy.
Provides an overview and rationale for adopting less invasive LVAD implantation strategies over conventional sternotomy for second and third generation continuous flow devices.
Dr. Maltais manuscript (1) is a nice overview touching every major aspect regarding the strategy and the most important steps of less invasive left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. This work gives an answer to the question why centers with very good results following LVAD implantation through a conventional sternotomy approach should adopt less invasive strategies when implanting second and third generation continuous flow devices as outlined in the Vanderbilt paper.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reineke et al. (2015) conducted an editorial in Terminal heart failure requiring left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Less invasive left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation vs. Conventional sternotomy approach was evaluated. Less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation has the potential to reduce right ventricular failure, cerebrovascular accidents, and reoperation challenges compared to conventional sternotomy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: