Kinetic assisted venous drainage for orthotopic heart transplantation in patients under mechanical circulatory support: a double-edged sword

Background: Heart transplantation in patients supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs) entails a high risk of injury at resternotomy. Prior femorofemoral bypass is the preferred approach in these patients, but poor venous drainage may restrict arterial flow rate. Patients and methods: We com...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery Vol. 33; no. 3; pp. 418 - 423
Main Authors: Kirsch, Matthias E.W., Kostantinos, Zannis, Ali, Firas, Vermes, Emmanuelle, Bajan, Gérard, Loisance, Daniel Y.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Science B.V 01-03-2008
Elsevier Science
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Heart transplantation in patients supported with ventricular assist devices (VADs) entails a high risk of injury at resternotomy. Prior femorofemoral bypass is the preferred approach in these patients, but poor venous drainage may restrict arterial flow rate. Patients and methods: We compared bypass parameters, transfusion requirements and postoperative outcome in 33 consecutive patients (40.4 ± 12.2 years old, 28 men) assisted with the Thoratec® paracorporeal VAD (mean duration, 3.0 ± 2.96 months) undergoing transplantation using either gravity siphon drainage (GSD, n = 16) or kinetic assisted venous drainage (KAVD, n = 17). Results: Cannulation technique, perfusion pressure, temperature and duration were similar between groups. There were no significant differences in arterial re-infusion flow rates (GSD, 3.6 ± 0.7 vs KAVD, 3.8 ± 0.6 l/min, p = 0.5). KAVD patients had a lower mean SvO2 and a higher desaturation index than GSD patients (69.5 ± 4.6 vs 76.1 ± 5.4 mmHg, p = 0.004; and 0.63 ± 0.23 vs 0.25 ± 0.63, p = 0.0001, respectively). Perioperative requirements in fresh frozen plasma and platelet transfusions were significantly higher in KAVD patients. However, there were no differences in postoperative patient outcome. Conclusion: Perceived benefits on venous return associated with KAVD do not necessarily translate into improved arterial re-infusion flow rates and should be weighed against the hazards of increased venous air aspiration and blood product requirements.
Bibliography:istex:5F054436CC3AE723A80BAF9CC8CF97CFA6D0AA07
ark:/67375/HXZ-BGMXHT23-L
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1010-7940
1873-734X
DOI:10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.11.022