Tricuspid Incompetence and Geometry of the Right Ventricle as Predictors of Right Ventricular Function After Implantation of a Left Ventricular Assist Device

Background Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for end-stage heart failure. Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction develops in 20% to 50% of patients after LVAD implantation, leading to prolonged ICU stay and elevated mortality. However, the prediction of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of heart and lung transplantation 2008-12, Vol.27 (12), p.1275-1281
Hauptverfasser: Potapov, Evgenij V., MD, Stepanenko, Alexander, MD, Dandel, Michael, MD, PhD, Kukucka, Marian, MD, Lehmkuhl, Hans B., MD, Weng, Yuguo, MD, PhD, Hennig, Felix, MD, Krabatsch, Thomas, MD, PhD, Hetzer, Roland, MD, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is an established treatment for end-stage heart failure. Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction develops in 20% to 50% of patients after LVAD implantation, leading to prolonged ICU stay and elevated mortality. However, the prediction of RV failure remains difficult. Methods The pre-operative echocardiographic parameters, tricuspid incompetence (TI), RV end-diastolic diameter (cut-off >35 mm), RV ejection fraction (cut-off 50 mm) and short/long axis ratio (cut-off >0.6), were analyzed retrospectively in 54 patients. Patients were divided into two groups. One group consisted of patients with RV failure ( n = 9), as defined by the presence of two of the following criteria in the first 48 hours after surgery: mean arterial pressure ≤55 mm Hg; central venous pressure ≥16 mm Hg; mixed venous saturation ≤55%; cardiac index 20 units; or need for an RVAD. The other patients comprised the non–RV-failure group ( n = 45). Results The RV failure group had a significantly higher short/long axis ratio of the RV (0.63 vs 0.52, p = 0.03; odds ratio 4.4, p = 0.011). For patients with a short/long axis ratio of the RV of
ISSN:1053-2498
1557-3117
DOI:10.1016/j.healun.2008.08.012