Jatin Anand

State of the art of mechanical circulatory support.

Mechanical circulatory support of the failing heart has become an important means of treating end-stage heart disease. This rapidly growing therapeutic field has produced impressive clinical outcomes and has great potential to help thousands of otherwise terminal patients worldwide. In this review, we examine the state of the art of mechanical circulatory support: current practice, totally implantable systems of the future, evolving biventricular support mechanisms, the potential for myocardial recovery and adjunctive treatment methods, and miniaturized devices with expanded indications for therapy.

Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support versus Organ Transplantation: Past, Present, and Future

For more than 30 years, heart transplantation has been a successful therapy for patients with terminal heart failure. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) was developed as a therapy for end-stage heart failure at a time when cardiac transplantation was not yet a useful treatment modality. With the more successful outcomes of cardiac transplantation in the 1980s, MCS was applied as a bridge to transplantation. Because of donor scarcity and limited long-term survival, heart transplantation has had a trivial impact on the epidemiology of heart failure. Surgical implementation of MCS, both for short- and long-term treatment, affords physicians an opportunity for dramatic expansion of a meaningful therapy for these otherwise mortally ill patients. This review explores the evolution of mechanical circulatory support and its potential for providing long-term therapy, which may address the limitations of cardiac transplantation.

Impact of concomitant mitral valve repair for severe mitral regurgitation at the time of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device insertion†

OBJECTIVES Mitral regurgitation (MR) is common in patients with end-stage heart failure. We assessed the effect of performing concomitant mitral valve repair during continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) implantation in patients with severe preoperative MR. METHODS We performed a single-centre, retrospective review of all patients who underwent CF-LVAD implantation between December 1999 and December 2013 (n = 469). Patients with severe preoperative MR (n = 78) were identified and then stratified according to whether they underwent concomitant valve repair. Univariate and survival analyses were performed, and multivariable regression was used to determine predictors of survival. RESULTS Of the 78 patients with severe MR, 21 underwent valve repair at the time of CF-LVAD implantation (repair group) and 57 did not (non-repair group). A comparison of the 2 groups showed significant differences between groups: INTERMACS I 16.985 vs 9.52%, (P = 0.039), cardiopulmonary bypass time 82.09 vs 109.4 min (P = 0.0042) and the use of HeartMate II 63.16 vs 100% (P = 0.001). Survival analysis suggested trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure-related readmissions in the repair group. Multivariable regression analysis showed no significant independent predictors of survival (mitral valve repair: odds ratio 0.4, 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.5; P = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS Despite the lack of statistical significance, trends towards improved survival and a lower incidence of heart failure events suggest that mitral valve repair may be beneficial in patients undergoing CF-LVAD implantation. Given the known relationship between severe MR and mortality, further study is encouraged to confirm the value of mitral valve repair in these patients.