Mechanical Circulatory Support: Reality and Dreams Experience of a Single Center

Abstract

Because of the increasing number of patients waiting for heart transplantation and the decreasing number of donor organs, mechanical circulatory support has become a generally accepted therapeutic option. Several high-tech devices developed in the last 15 years differ in terms of location, kind of support, and driving units. They are suitable for different patients and their therapeutics objectives. Based on 13 years of experience, we developed a specific protocol for selection and management of patients and devices. Six hundred two patients have received mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in our institution since 1987. The indication spectrum includes cardiogenic shock for various reasons: acute myocarditis, right heart failure, acute rejection and postcardiotomy heart failure, alternative to transplantation, and bridge to recovery. Eight different systems are in use at our center. The extracorporeal devices, the Biomedicus centrifugal pump (n = 169) and the Abiomed BVS 5000 (n = 92) are used for short-term support. The Thoratec VAD (n = 179), and Medos HIA–VAD (n = 10) located in paracorporeal position preferably used for midterm support. Novacor LVAS (n = 96), and HeartMate (n = 58) are partially implantable systems used for long-term ventricular assistance in patients who did not require biventricular support. The advantage of the implantable devices is the option of discharging patients under support if they fulfill special criteria before being discharged to home. Eighty-five LVAD patients were discharged home with support, Novacor (n = 52), HeartMate (n = 27), ThoratecTLC-II (n = 8), Lionheart (n = 3) fulfill our criteria for being discharged home while on support. Careful postoperative patient management does not exclude a variety of complications. Bleeding: occurred in 22–35% of patients, right heart failure in 15–26%, neurologic disorder in 7–28%, infection in 7–30%, and liver failure in 11–20%. Complications varied with different devices, and the patients’ preoperative conditions. Eighty-five patients fulfilled the criteria of our out of hospital program (OOH) and were discharged from hospital for a mean period of 184 days. Readmission was necessary for complications caused by thromboembolism and infection. This report describes our patient device selection criteria as a bridge to transplant setting.