Outcomes of Intracorporeal Continuous, Paracorporeal Continuous, and Paracorporeal Pulsatile Ventricular Assist Devices in Pediatric Patients 10-30 kg

Abstract

<h3>Purpose</h3> In the past decade, ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been increasingly implanted in pediatric patients. Although no definitive size standards exist, paracorporeal VADs are generally chosen when intracorporeal continuous (IC) devices are deemed too large for smaller patients. Superiority between IC, paracorporeal continuous (PC) and paracorporeal pulsatile (PP) devices remains unclear in smaller pediatric patients. Our study analyzes outcomes of IC, PC and PP VADs in pediatric patients who could be considered for any of these options. <h3>Methods</h3> Using the Advanced Cardiac Therapies Improving Outcomes Network(ACTION) database, we identified children between 10 and 30 kg who were supported on a VAD between June 2018 and September 2021. Survival and stroke outcomes were analyzed based on VAD type. <h3>Results</h3> Patient demographics, survival outcomes and stroke rates are displayed in Table 1. Patient diagnosis was similar amongst all three cohorts. Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) profile at time of implant was similar in all groups except when comparing the IC vs PP cohorts (p = 0.03). The PP and PC cohorts were younger (p<0.001) and smaller (p<0.001) than the IC cohort. The number of device days was highest in the IC cohort. Overall survival was similar between groups. Stroke rate was higher in the PP group, but without statistical significance. Discharge was possible only in the IC group, but the discharge rate was low (9.5%). <h3>Conclusion</h3> There was difference in overall survival rates between the IC, PC and PP cohorts. Rates of stroke were highest in the PP cohort, but without statistical significance. Diagnosis and INTERMACS profile were similar with the exception of the IC vs PP cohorts, but direct comparisons remain challenging given differences in age and size. Future studies are needed to compare outcomes in these devices especially given size constraints in smaller pediatric patients.