Cargando…

Predictors of right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation

Number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations increases every year, particularly LVADs for destination therapy (DT). Right ventricular failure (RVF) has been recognized as a serious complication of LVAD implantation. Reported incidence of RVF after LVAD ranges from 6% to 44%, varying...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koprivanac, Marijan, Kelava, Marta, Sirić, Franjo, Cruz, Vincent B., Moazami, Nader, Mihaljević, Tomislav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Croatian Medical Schools 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295071/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25559829
http://dx.doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2014.55.587
Descripción
Sumario:Number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations increases every year, particularly LVADs for destination therapy (DT). Right ventricular failure (RVF) has been recognized as a serious complication of LVAD implantation. Reported incidence of RVF after LVAD ranges from 6% to 44%, varying mostly due to differences in RVF definition, different types of LVADs, and differences in patient populations included in studies. RVF complicating LVAD implantation is associated with worse postoperative mortality and morbidity including worse end-organ function, longer hospital length of stay, and lower success of bridge to transplant (BTT) therapy. Importance of RVF and its predictors in a setting of LVAD implantation has been recognized early, as evidenced by abundant number of attempts to identify independent risk factors and develop RVF predictor scores with a common purpose to improve patient selection and outcomes by recognizing potential need for biventricular assist device (BiVAD) at the time of LVAD implantation. The aim of this article is to review and summarize current body of knowledge on risk factors and prediction scores of RVF after LVAD implantation. Despite abundance of studies and proposed risk scores for RVF following LVAD, certain common limitations make their implementation and clinical usefulness questionable. Regardless, value of these studies lies in providing information on potential key predictors for RVF that can be taken into account in clinical decision making. Further investigation of current predictors and existing scores as well as new studies involving larger patient populations and more sophisticated statistical prediction models are necessary. Additionally, a short description of our empirical institutional approach to management of RVF following LVAD implantation is provided.