TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART Versus HeartMate II
AU - Matsumoto, Yorihiko
AU - Fujita, Tomoyuki
AU - Fukushima, Satsuki
AU - Hata, Hiroki
AU - Shimahara, Yusuke
AU - Kume, Yuta
AU - Yamashita, Kizuku
AU - Kuroda, Kensuke
AU - Nakajima, Seiko
AU - Sato, Takuma
AU - Seguchi, Osamu
AU - Yanase, Masanobu
AU - Fukushima, Norihide
AU - Shimizu, Hideyuki
AU - Kobayashi, Junjiro
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by the ASAIO.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, fourteen patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection, and neurologic events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28% with EVAHEART, and 85% with HeartMate II; freedom from neurologic events was 21% with EVAHEART, and 89% with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurologic events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.
AB - This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, fourteen patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection, and neurologic events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28% with EVAHEART, and 85% with HeartMate II; freedom from neurologic events was 21% with EVAHEART, and 89% with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurologic events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010903560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010903560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530
DO - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530
M3 - Article
C2 - 28125466
AN - SCOPUS:85010903560
SN - 1058-2916
VL - 63
SP - 562
EP - 567
JO - ASAIO Journal
JF - ASAIO Journal
IS - 5
ER -