Premium
Is Resternotomy a Risk for Continuous‐Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device Outcomes?
Author(s) -
Tsiouris Athanasios,
Brewer Robert J.,
Borgi Jamil,
Hodari Arielle,
Nemeh Hassan W.,
Cogan Chad M.,
Paone Gaetano,
Morgan Jeffrey A.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of cardiac surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.428
H-Index - 58
eISSN - 1540-8191
pISSN - 0886-0440
DOI - 10.1111/jocs.12048
Subject(s) - medicine , continuous flow , cardiology , flow (mathematics) , ventricular assist device , intensive care medicine , mechanics , heart failure , physics
Background: The number of patients undergoing resternotomy continues to rise. Although catastrophic hemorrhage remains a dreaded complication, most published data suggest that sternal reentrance is safe, with negligible postoperative morbidity and mortality. A significant proportion of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantations are reoperative cardiac procedures. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes between first time sternotomy and resternotomy patients receiving continuous‐flow LVADs, as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy. Methods and materials: From March 2006 through February 2012, 100 patients underwent implantation of a HeartMate II or HeartWare LVAD at our institution. Patients were stratified into two groups, primary sternotomy and resternotomy. Variables were compared using two‐sided t‐tests, chi‐square tests, Cox proportional hazards models, and log‐rank tests to determine whether there was a difference between the two groups and if resternotomy was a significant independent predictor of outcome. Results: We identified 29 patients (29%) who had resternotomy and 71 patients (71%) who had first time sternotomy. The resternotomy group was significantly older (56 years vs. 51 years, p = 0.05), was more likely to have ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) (69% vs. 30%, p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (31% vs. 14%, p = 0.05) and had longer cardiopulmonary bypass times (135 min vs. 100 min, p = 0.011). Survival rates at 30 days (93.1% vs. 95.8%, p = 0.564), 180 days (82.8% vs. 93%, p = 0.131), and 360 days (82.8% vs. 88.7%, p = 0.398) were similar for the resternotomy and primary sternotomy groups, respectively. Postoperative complications were also comparable, except for re‐exploration for bleeding which was higher for the resternotomy group (17.2% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.029), although blood transfusion requirements were not significantly different (1.4 units vs. 1.2 units, p = 0.815). Left and right heart catheterization measurements and echocardiographic (ECHO) findings after 1 and 6 months of LVAD therapy were similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Survival at 30, 180, and 360 days after LVAD implantation is similar between the resternotomy and primary sternotomy group. No major differences in complications or hemodynamic measurements were observed. Although a limited observational study, our findings agree with previously published resternotomy outcomes.