BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation

Jason A. Petrofski, Vijaykumar Surendrakant Patel, Stuart D. Russell, Carmelo A. Milano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study examines short-term mechanical assist device support for cardiac transplant patients and compares their outcomes with nontransplant patients requiring similar support. Methods: Of 350 cardiac transplant patients at our institution, 7 patients required mechanical ventricular assistance with the Abiomed BVS5000 assist device (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, Mass) after transplant secondary to severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock (n = 4) or primary graft failure (n = 3). Recovery of ventricular function, survival to discharge, and complications were determined for the transplant group and compared with a second group comprising all other patients supported with the BVS5000 at our institution (n = 15). Additionally, the results of prior series reporting mechanical ventricular support of the failing transplant heart are reviewed. Results: Demographics and duration of support were similar between the groups. The transplant group had a higher wean rate from device relative to the nontransplant group (100% versus 13%; P < 0.01). Five of 7 in the transplant group achieved survival to discharge (71%), relative to 5 of 15 in the nontransplant group (33%). Complications between the two groups were similar, although the transplant group experienced a higher rate of renal insufficiency (57% versus 13%, P = 0.05). Conclusion: Severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock and primary graft failure are two conditions that may warrant mechanical ventricular support in the cardiac transplant patient. Transplant patients with these conditions have a high rate of ventricular functional recovery, greater than nontransplant patients supported with the same device and for a similar period of time. Although the incidence of renal insufficiency was higher, the majority of transplant patients who were supported with the BVS5000 achieved survival to discharge.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)442-447
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume126
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Heart Transplantation
Transplants
Equipment and Supplies
Cardiogenic Shock
Renal Insufficiency
Survival
Ventricular Function
Recovery of Function
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation. / Petrofski, Jason A.; Patel, Vijaykumar Surendrakant; Russell, Stuart D.; Milano, Carmelo A.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 126, No. 2, 01.08.2003, p. 442-447.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Petrofski, Jason A. ; Patel, Vijaykumar Surendrakant ; Russell, Stuart D. ; Milano, Carmelo A. / BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2003 ; Vol. 126, No. 2. pp. 442-447.
@article{32ea394eedaa43abbbc3a759e26cb027,
title = "BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation",
abstract = "Objective: This study examines short-term mechanical assist device support for cardiac transplant patients and compares their outcomes with nontransplant patients requiring similar support. Methods: Of 350 cardiac transplant patients at our institution, 7 patients required mechanical ventricular assistance with the Abiomed BVS5000 assist device (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, Mass) after transplant secondary to severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock (n = 4) or primary graft failure (n = 3). Recovery of ventricular function, survival to discharge, and complications were determined for the transplant group and compared with a second group comprising all other patients supported with the BVS5000 at our institution (n = 15). Additionally, the results of prior series reporting mechanical ventricular support of the failing transplant heart are reviewed. Results: Demographics and duration of support were similar between the groups. The transplant group had a higher wean rate from device relative to the nontransplant group (100{\%} versus 13{\%}; P < 0.01). Five of 7 in the transplant group achieved survival to discharge (71{\%}), relative to 5 of 15 in the nontransplant group (33{\%}). Complications between the two groups were similar, although the transplant group experienced a higher rate of renal insufficiency (57{\%} versus 13{\%}, P = 0.05). Conclusion: Severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock and primary graft failure are two conditions that may warrant mechanical ventricular support in the cardiac transplant patient. Transplant patients with these conditions have a high rate of ventricular functional recovery, greater than nontransplant patients supported with the same device and for a similar period of time. Although the incidence of renal insufficiency was higher, the majority of transplant patients who were supported with the BVS5000 achieved survival to discharge.",
author = "Petrofski, {Jason A.} and Patel, {Vijaykumar Surendrakant} and Russell, {Stuart D.} and Milano, {Carmelo A.}",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-5223(02)73613-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "442--447",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - BVS5000 support after cardiac transplantation

AU - Petrofski, Jason A.

AU - Patel, Vijaykumar Surendrakant

AU - Russell, Stuart D.

AU - Milano, Carmelo A.

PY - 2003/8/1

Y1 - 2003/8/1

N2 - Objective: This study examines short-term mechanical assist device support for cardiac transplant patients and compares their outcomes with nontransplant patients requiring similar support. Methods: Of 350 cardiac transplant patients at our institution, 7 patients required mechanical ventricular assistance with the Abiomed BVS5000 assist device (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, Mass) after transplant secondary to severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock (n = 4) or primary graft failure (n = 3). Recovery of ventricular function, survival to discharge, and complications were determined for the transplant group and compared with a second group comprising all other patients supported with the BVS5000 at our institution (n = 15). Additionally, the results of prior series reporting mechanical ventricular support of the failing transplant heart are reviewed. Results: Demographics and duration of support were similar between the groups. The transplant group had a higher wean rate from device relative to the nontransplant group (100% versus 13%; P < 0.01). Five of 7 in the transplant group achieved survival to discharge (71%), relative to 5 of 15 in the nontransplant group (33%). Complications between the two groups were similar, although the transplant group experienced a higher rate of renal insufficiency (57% versus 13%, P = 0.05). Conclusion: Severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock and primary graft failure are two conditions that may warrant mechanical ventricular support in the cardiac transplant patient. Transplant patients with these conditions have a high rate of ventricular functional recovery, greater than nontransplant patients supported with the same device and for a similar period of time. Although the incidence of renal insufficiency was higher, the majority of transplant patients who were supported with the BVS5000 achieved survival to discharge.

AB - Objective: This study examines short-term mechanical assist device support for cardiac transplant patients and compares their outcomes with nontransplant patients requiring similar support. Methods: Of 350 cardiac transplant patients at our institution, 7 patients required mechanical ventricular assistance with the Abiomed BVS5000 assist device (Abiomed, Inc, Danvers, Mass) after transplant secondary to severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock (n = 4) or primary graft failure (n = 3). Recovery of ventricular function, survival to discharge, and complications were determined for the transplant group and compared with a second group comprising all other patients supported with the BVS5000 at our institution (n = 15). Additionally, the results of prior series reporting mechanical ventricular support of the failing transplant heart are reviewed. Results: Demographics and duration of support were similar between the groups. The transplant group had a higher wean rate from device relative to the nontransplant group (100% versus 13%; P < 0.01). Five of 7 in the transplant group achieved survival to discharge (71%), relative to 5 of 15 in the nontransplant group (33%). Complications between the two groups were similar, although the transplant group experienced a higher rate of renal insufficiency (57% versus 13%, P = 0.05). Conclusion: Severe acute rejection with cardiogenic shock and primary graft failure are two conditions that may warrant mechanical ventricular support in the cardiac transplant patient. Transplant patients with these conditions have a high rate of ventricular functional recovery, greater than nontransplant patients supported with the same device and for a similar period of time. Although the incidence of renal insufficiency was higher, the majority of transplant patients who were supported with the BVS5000 achieved survival to discharge.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0041353780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0041353780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-5223(02)73613-1

DO - 10.1016/S0022-5223(02)73613-1

M3 - Article

VL - 126

SP - 442

EP - 447

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 2

ER -