Cargando…

Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Clinicians may be less inclined to consider long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) as a result of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) versus ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) owing to potentially greater right ventricular involvement in the f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wavell, Christopher, Sokolowski, Andrew, Klingel, Michelle L., Yin, Charles, Nagpal, A. Dave
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Joule Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33497171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.005719
_version_ 1783664320761036800
author Wavell, Christopher
Sokolowski, Andrew
Klingel, Michelle L.
Yin, Charles
Nagpal, A. Dave
author_facet Wavell, Christopher
Sokolowski, Andrew
Klingel, Michelle L.
Yin, Charles
Nagpal, A. Dave
author_sort Wavell, Christopher
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinicians may be less inclined to consider long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) as a result of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) versus ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) owing to potentially greater right ventricular involvement in the former; however, it is unknown whether the cause of heart failure has a clinically meaningful effect on outcomes following LVAD implantation. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine whether ischemic versus nonischemic etiology has any impact on patient-relevant outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English between Jan. 1, 2000, and Nov. 22, 2018, that examined survival and transplantation rates following LVAD implantation in patients with NICM or ICM. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series with a sample size of at least 8 patients were eligible for inclusion. To be included in the meta-analysis, outcomes had to include at least death reported at 30 days or 1 year after LVAD implantation. Quality of included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality-assessment tool was used to assess outcomes (30-d survival, 1-yr survival and cardiac transplantation following LVAD therapy) across studies. RESULTS: From a total of 2843 citations identified, 7 studies met all inclusion criteria. Studies were generally of good quality, but reporting of patient demographic characteristics, outcomes and complications was heterogeneous. We found no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year survival or in cardiac transplantation rates after device implantation between the NICM and ICM groups. Patients in the 2 groups had similar outcomes up to 1 year with LVAD therapy. CONCLUSION: Early outcomes of LVAD therapy do not appear to be affected by heart failure etiology. Ongoing investigation is required to determine the long-term outcomes of LVAD therapy in ICM and NICM. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO register, record ID 76483.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7955823
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Joule Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79558232021-03-19 Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Wavell, Christopher Sokolowski, Andrew Klingel, Michelle L. Yin, Charles Nagpal, A. Dave Can J Surg Review BACKGROUND: Clinicians may be less inclined to consider long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) as a result of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) versus ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) owing to potentially greater right ventricular involvement in the former; however, it is unknown whether the cause of heart failure has a clinically meaningful effect on outcomes following LVAD implantation. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine whether ischemic versus nonischemic etiology has any impact on patient-relevant outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English between Jan. 1, 2000, and Nov. 22, 2018, that examined survival and transplantation rates following LVAD implantation in patients with NICM or ICM. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series with a sample size of at least 8 patients were eligible for inclusion. To be included in the meta-analysis, outcomes had to include at least death reported at 30 days or 1 year after LVAD implantation. Quality of included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality-assessment tool was used to assess outcomes (30-d survival, 1-yr survival and cardiac transplantation following LVAD therapy) across studies. RESULTS: From a total of 2843 citations identified, 7 studies met all inclusion criteria. Studies were generally of good quality, but reporting of patient demographic characteristics, outcomes and complications was heterogeneous. We found no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year survival or in cardiac transplantation rates after device implantation between the NICM and ICM groups. Patients in the 2 groups had similar outcomes up to 1 year with LVAD therapy. CONCLUSION: Early outcomes of LVAD therapy do not appear to be affected by heart failure etiology. Ongoing investigation is required to determine the long-term outcomes of LVAD therapy in ICM and NICM. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO register, record ID 76483. Joule Inc. 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7955823/ /pubmed/33497171 http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.005719 Text en © 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original publication is properly cited, the use is noncommercial (i.e., research or educational use), and no modifications or adaptations are made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Review
Wavell, Christopher
Sokolowski, Andrew
Klingel, Michelle L.
Yin, Charles
Nagpal, A. Dave
Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955823/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33497171
http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cjs.005719
work_keys_str_mv AT wavellchristopher clinicaleffectivenessoftherapywithcontinuousflowleftventricularassistdevicesinnonischemicversusischemiccardiomyopathyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sokolowskiandrew clinicaleffectivenessoftherapywithcontinuousflowleftventricularassistdevicesinnonischemicversusischemiccardiomyopathyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT klingelmichellel clinicaleffectivenessoftherapywithcontinuousflowleftventricularassistdevicesinnonischemicversusischemiccardiomyopathyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yincharles clinicaleffectivenessoftherapywithcontinuousflowleftventricularassistdevicesinnonischemicversusischemiccardiomyopathyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nagpaladave clinicaleffectivenessoftherapywithcontinuousflowleftventricularassistdevicesinnonischemicversusischemiccardiomyopathyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis