Mechanical circulatory support in pediatric patients with biventricular and univentricular heartsCentral MessagePerspective

Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in pediatric patients remains challenging because of small body size, limited availability of approved devices, and the variety of etiologies, including biventricular and univentricular physiologies. We report our single-center experience with MCS in...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	JTCVS open Vol. 6; pp. 202 - 208
Main Authors:	Marcus Granegger, PhD, Thomas Schlöglhofer, MSc, Julia Riebandt, MD, Gerald Schlager, MD, Keso Skhirtladze-Dworschak, MD, Erwin Kitzmüller, MD, Ina Michel-Behnke, MD, Günther Laufer, MD, Daniel Zimpfer, MD
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	Elsevier 01-06-2021
Subjects:	mechanical circulatory support pediatric patients single ventricle univentricular patients
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in pediatric patients remains challenging because of small body size, limited availability of approved devices, and the variety of etiologies, including biventricular and univentricular physiologies. We report our single-center experience with MCS in pediatric patients in terms of survival and adverse events. Methods: Outcome, etiologic, and demographic data of pediatric patients implanted with a long-term MCS device between 2011 and 2019 at the Medical University of Vienna were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Overall survival and freedom of treatment-related adverse events at 1 year were investigated by Kaplan–Meier analyses and stratified for circulation (biventricular vs univentricular), age group (<6 years vs >6 years), and pump technology (pulsatile ventricular assist device [p-VAD] vs continuous flow pump [cf-VAD]). Results: One-year survival of all 33 pediatric patients (median, 4 years; interquartile range, 0-13 years) was 73%, with a tendency toward better outcomes in patients with biventricular circulation than in those with univentricular circulation (80%; n = 25 vs 50%; n = 8; P = .063). The trends toward better survival probability in older patients and in patients with cf-VADs did not reach statistical significance (63.2% vs 85.7%; P = .165 and 82.4% vs 62.5%; P = .179, respectively). Freedom from adverse events was higher in older patients (57.1% vs 5.6%; P < .001) and in the cf-VAD group (52.9% vs 0%; P < .001), with pump thrombosis as the main discriminator. Conclusions: MCS is a promising therapy for a broad spectrum of pediatric patients, irrespective of heart failure etiology, age, and pump type. With increasing experience, improved devices, and patient selection, MCS may become a valuable treatment option for patients with univentricular hearts.
ISSN:	2666-2736 2666-2736