TY - JOUR
T1 - Perioperative blood product use
T2 - A comparison between HeartWare and HeartMate II devices
AU - Haglund, Nicholas A.
AU - Davis, Mary E.
AU - Tricarico, Nicole M.
AU - Ahmad, Rashid M.
AU - Disalvo, Thomas G.
AU - Keebler, Mary E.
AU - Schlendorf, Kelly H.
AU - Wigger, Mark A.
AU - Stulak, John M.
AU - Maltais, Simon
N1 - Funding Information:
NH is funded by the T32HL007411 Training in Cardiovascular Research Grant. This work was also funded by a Clinical & Population Research Award from the American Heart Association, 14CRP18900004. We would like to acknowledge the Vanderbilt Advanced Heart Failure Registry & Bio-repository (IRB #131978). SM is a paid consultant for HW.
PY - 2014/9
Y1 - 2014/9
N2 - Background. The HeartWare (HW) (Framingham, MA) and the HeartMate II (HM II) (Thoratec Inc, Pleasanton, CA) continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are commonly used to bridge patients to transplantation. We hypothesized that there are differences in perioperative blood product (BP) use and chest tube (CT) output between CF-LVAD types. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated BP use in 71 patients who were implanted with a CF-LVAD (HM II = 38; HW = 33) by median sternotomy for bridge to transplantation (BTT) indications from 2009 to 2013. Detailed BP use data were collected during the intraoperative and postoperative periods and included packed red blood cells, platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate. Results. Preoperative characteristics (age, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous sternotomy, ischemic cause), and risk stratification scores (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS]) profile, Leitz-Miller score, Kormos score) were comparable between groups (all p > 0.05). Total average intraoperative and postoperative BP use was different between device types: HW = 8.3 ± 13 versus HM II = 12.6 ± 14.0 units (p = 0.002) and HW = 6.1 ± 12.0 units compared with HM II = 13.5 ± 24.1 units (p = 0.022), respectively. Average postoperative CT output for HW (3,231 ± 3,648 mL) and HM II (3,463 ± 3,050) (p < 0.008) were different between device types. Multivariate analysis revealed that a higher preoperative Leitz-Miller score, implantation of an HM II CF-LVAD, previous sternotomy, and a longer duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were independently associated with increased need for BP use, whereas only use of the HM II device and a longer bypass time predicted a greater CT output. Conclusions. Compared with HM II, implantation of the HW CF-LVAD was associated with reduced intraoperative and postoperative BP use and decreased CT output. Increased awareness of device-related differences in bleeding and BP use may improve CF-LVAD patient outcomes.
AB - Background. The HeartWare (HW) (Framingham, MA) and the HeartMate II (HM II) (Thoratec Inc, Pleasanton, CA) continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are commonly used to bridge patients to transplantation. We hypothesized that there are differences in perioperative blood product (BP) use and chest tube (CT) output between CF-LVAD types. Methods. We retrospectively evaluated BP use in 71 patients who were implanted with a CF-LVAD (HM II = 38; HW = 33) by median sternotomy for bridge to transplantation (BTT) indications from 2009 to 2013. Detailed BP use data were collected during the intraoperative and postoperative periods and included packed red blood cells, platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate. Results. Preoperative characteristics (age, left ventricular ejection fraction, previous sternotomy, ischemic cause), and risk stratification scores (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS]) profile, Leitz-Miller score, Kormos score) were comparable between groups (all p > 0.05). Total average intraoperative and postoperative BP use was different between device types: HW = 8.3 ± 13 versus HM II = 12.6 ± 14.0 units (p = 0.002) and HW = 6.1 ± 12.0 units compared with HM II = 13.5 ± 24.1 units (p = 0.022), respectively. Average postoperative CT output for HW (3,231 ± 3,648 mL) and HM II (3,463 ± 3,050) (p < 0.008) were different between device types. Multivariate analysis revealed that a higher preoperative Leitz-Miller score, implantation of an HM II CF-LVAD, previous sternotomy, and a longer duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time were independently associated with increased need for BP use, whereas only use of the HM II device and a longer bypass time predicted a greater CT output. Conclusions. Compared with HM II, implantation of the HW CF-LVAD was associated with reduced intraoperative and postoperative BP use and decreased CT output. Increased awareness of device-related differences in bleeding and BP use may improve CF-LVAD patient outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908312610&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908312610&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.016
DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.05.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 25085559
AN - SCOPUS:84908312610
SN - 0003-4975
VL - 98
SP - 842
EP - 849
JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
IS - 3
ER -