| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5729301 | Transplantation Proceedings | 2017 | 4 Pages |
ObjectivesWe analyzed the outcome of patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) at the University of Tokyo Hospital to compare those with centrifugal pumps (CE group: Duraheart and Evaheart) and those with axial-flow pumps (AX group: Heartmate II and Jarvik 2000).MethodsA total of 68 patients who underwent implantation of LVADs (Duraheart: n = 15; Evaheart: n = 23; Heartmate II: n = 22; Jarvik 2000: n = 8) as a bridge to transplantation at our institution from May 2011 to April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were followed through December 2015.ResultsThe mean follow-up time of the CE group was 1.95 ± 0.92 year (total 74.1 patient-years) and that of the AX group was 1.56 ± 0.56 year (total 46.8 patient-years). Whether the patients underwent centrifugal or axial-flow pump implantations was not associated with survival or driveline infection according to log-rank test (1-year survival rate: 89% vs 100% [P = .221]; 1-year freedom rate: 40% vs 43% [P = .952]). The rates of freedom from cerebrovascular accident (CVA) at 1 year after LVAD implantation in the CE and AX groups were 70% and 96%, respectively (P < .001). The CE group showed a higher frequency of CVA (0.472 vs 0.021 event per patient-year).ConclusionsOur findings indicate that overall survival and driveline infection rates are similar between centrifugal and axial-flow pumps, but they suggest that patients with centrifugal pumps are more likely to develop CVAs than those with axial-flow pumps.
