Early biventricular assist device use in children: A single-center review of 31 patients

Jacob R. Miller, Deirdre J. Epstein, Matthew C. Henn, Tracey Guthrie, Richard B. Schuessler, Kathleen E. Simpson, Charles E. Canter, Pirooz Eghtesady, Umar S. Boston

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

Biventricular assist device (BiVAD) support is considered a risk factor for worse outcomes compared with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) alone for children with end-stage heart failure. It remains unclear whether this is because of the morbidity associated with a second device or the underlying disease severity. We aimed to show that early BiVAD support can result in good survival by analyzing our prospectively collected database for all pediatric patients who underwent BiVAD implantation. From 2005 to 2009, BiVADs were used exclusively. From 2010 to 2014, LVAD alone was considered, maintaining a low threshold for BiVAD support. All BiVADs were pulsatile devices. Thirty-one patients with median age of 3.5 years received BiVAD support. Diagnoses included dilated cardiomyopathy in 17 (55%), myocarditis in 6 (19%), and congenital heart disease in 3 (10%). Survival to transplant was achieved in 27 (87%) with a median duration of 41 days (interquartile range, 15-69). Adverse event rates (per 100 days of support) were bleeding at 0.52, infection at 1.17, and central nervous system dysfunction at 0.78. Of those who survived to transplant, 26 (96%) remain alive with a median follow-up of 55 months. These results show that BiVAD support can bridge patients to transplant with excellent longterm survival.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)688-694
Number of pages7
JournalASAIO Journal
Volume61
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 3 2015

Keywords

  • Biventricular assist device
  • Complications
  • Heart failure
  • Pediatric
  • Survival
  • VAD

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Early biventricular assist device use in children: A single-center review of 31 patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this