Document Type

Article

Publication Date

5-1-2025

Comments

This article is the author's final published version in JHLT Open, Volume 8, May 2025 Article number 100258.

The published version is available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100258.

2950-1334/© Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation.

Abstract

Outcomes with isolated right ventricular assist devices (iRVAD) using pumps designed for the left ventricle are not well described. This study compares the clinical characteristics and outcomes of iRVAD patients to those patients treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and biventricular assist devices (BiVAD). This study consisted of patients who received iRVAD from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry (2006-2017). The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Of 20,789 patients, 26 (0.13%) received iRVAD, 17 with pulsatile flow and 9 with continuous-flow devices. Device strategy was bridge to recovery/rescue therapy in 9 (35%), bridge to transplant/decision in 14 (52%), and destination therapy in 3 (12%). Twelve (46%) patients were INTERMACS profile 1, 5 patients (19%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 13 (50%) needed mechanical ventilation. Two-year survival for patients with iRVAD (41.3%) was similar to BiVAD (45.2%) and significantly lower than LVAD (69.0%). In patients with isolated right-sided failure, long-term iRVAD support is feasible.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Additional Files
Figure 1.jpg (77 kB)
Figure 1
Figure 2.jpg (241 kB)
Figure 2

PubMed ID

40276318

Language

English

Download

Included in

Surgery Commons

Share

COinS