Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II

Yorihiko Matsumoto, Tomoyuki Fujita, Satsuki Fukushima, Hiroki Hata, Yusuke Shimahara, Yuta Kume, Kizuku Yamashita, Kensuke Kuroda, Seiko Nakajima, Takuma Sato, Osamu Seguchi, Masanobu Yanase, Norihide Fukushima, Hideyuki Shimizu, Junjiro Kobayashi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, 14 patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection and neurological events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART, and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28% with EVAHEART, and 85% with HeartMate II; freedom from neurological events was 21% with EVAHEART, and 89% with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurological events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.

Original languageEnglish
JournalASAIO Journal
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2017 Jan 23

Fingerprint

Hemodynamics
Infection
Left ventricular assist devices
Echocardiography
Pulmonary Wedge Pressure
Heart-Assist Devices
Catheters
Capillarity
Cardiac Catheterization
L-Lactate Dehydrogenase
Survival Rate
Pressure
Equipment and Supplies
Lung
Survival
Serum

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Bioengineering
  • Biophysics
  • Medicine(all)
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

Matsumoto, Y., Fujita, T., Fukushima, S., Hata, H., Shimahara, Y., Kume, Y., ... Kobayashi, J. (Accepted/In press). Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II. ASAIO Journal. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530

Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II. / Matsumoto, Yorihiko; Fujita, Tomoyuki; Fukushima, Satsuki; Hata, Hiroki; Shimahara, Yusuke; Kume, Yuta; Yamashita, Kizuku; Kuroda, Kensuke; Nakajima, Seiko; Sato, Takuma; Seguchi, Osamu; Yanase, Masanobu; Fukushima, Norihide; Shimizu, Hideyuki; Kobayashi, Junjiro.

In: ASAIO Journal, 23.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Matsumoto, Y, Fujita, T, Fukushima, S, Hata, H, Shimahara, Y, Kume, Y, Yamashita, K, Kuroda, K, Nakajima, S, Sato, T, Seguchi, O, Yanase, M, Fukushima, N, Shimizu, H & Kobayashi, J 2017, 'Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II', ASAIO Journal. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530
Matsumoto, Yorihiko ; Fujita, Tomoyuki ; Fukushima, Satsuki ; Hata, Hiroki ; Shimahara, Yusuke ; Kume, Yuta ; Yamashita, Kizuku ; Kuroda, Kensuke ; Nakajima, Seiko ; Sato, Takuma ; Seguchi, Osamu ; Yanase, Masanobu ; Fukushima, Norihide ; Shimizu, Hideyuki ; Kobayashi, Junjiro. / Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II. In: ASAIO Journal. 2017.
@article{d72affc0c16741598983c0e02741d5b1,
title = "Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II",
abstract = "This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, 14 patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection and neurological events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART, and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28{\%} with EVAHEART, and 85{\%} with HeartMate II; freedom from neurological events was 21{\%} with EVAHEART, and 89{\%} with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurological events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.",
author = "Yorihiko Matsumoto and Tomoyuki Fujita and Satsuki Fukushima and Hiroki Hata and Yusuke Shimahara and Yuta Kume and Kizuku Yamashita and Kensuke Kuroda and Seiko Nakajima and Takuma Sato and Osamu Seguchi and Masanobu Yanase and Norihide Fukushima and Hideyuki Shimizu and Junjiro Kobayashi",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530",
language = "English",
journal = "ASAIO Journal",
issn = "1058-2916",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Hemodynamic Performance and Clinical Results with EVAHEART versus HeartMate II

AU - Matsumoto, Yorihiko

AU - Fujita, Tomoyuki

AU - Fukushima, Satsuki

AU - Hata, Hiroki

AU - Shimahara, Yusuke

AU - Kume, Yuta

AU - Yamashita, Kizuku

AU - Kuroda, Kensuke

AU - Nakajima, Seiko

AU - Sato, Takuma

AU - Seguchi, Osamu

AU - Yanase, Masanobu

AU - Fukushima, Norihide

AU - Shimizu, Hideyuki

AU - Kobayashi, Junjiro

PY - 2017/1/23

Y1 - 2017/1/23

N2 - This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, 14 patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection and neurological events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART, and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28% with EVAHEART, and 85% with HeartMate II; freedom from neurological events was 21% with EVAHEART, and 89% with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurological events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.

AB - This study aimed to compare the hemodynamic performance and clinical results of the EVAHEART and HeartMate II left ventricular assist devices (LVADs). From 2007 to 2016, 14 patients received EVAHEART and 28 received HeartMate II at our center. Early survival, driveline infection and neurological events were evaluated. Hemodynamic performance was evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography and right heart catheterization. Mean follow-up was 35.5 ± 14.8 months for EVAHEART, and 29.8 ± 6.5 months for HeartMate II. Survival rates were comparable between the two groups. After 24 months, freedom from driveline infection was 28% with EVAHEART, and 85% with HeartMate II; freedom from neurological events was 21% with EVAHEART, and 89% with HeartMate II. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was significantly lower with EVAHEART. There was a significantly greater decrease in left ventricular size with HeartMate II. In catheter examination performed 1 month postoperatively, HeartMate II recipients had significantly lower pulmonary capillary wedge pressure and mean pulmonary pressure, despite a comparable cardiac index. Both devices provided excellent clinical results and hemodynamic performance. HeartMate II could be a better choice to avoid driveline infection and neurological events. Our results suggest that HeartMate II reduced right ventricular afterload. However, further analysis of more cases is required.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85010903560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85010903560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530

DO - 10.1097/MAT.0000000000000530

M3 - Article

C2 - 28125466

AN - SCOPUS:85010903560

JO - ASAIO Journal

JF - ASAIO Journal

SN - 1058-2916

ER -