Related Experiment Videos
Temporary pulsatile ventricular assist devices and biventricular assist devices
R Körfer1, A El-Banayosy, L Arusoglu
1Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Center North Rhine-Westphalia, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany.
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
|September 4, 1999
Summary
The Thoratec VAD demonstrates versatility for short-term mechanical circulatory support in heart failure patients. ABIOMED BVS is not recommended for bridging patients to transplantation.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Surgical Technology
Background:
- Mechanical circulatory support systems have advanced significantly.
- This study evaluates short-term and mid-term outcomes of ABIOMED BVS and Thoratec VAD devices.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and outcomes of ABIOMED BVS and Thoratec VAD.
- To assess device performance in postcardiotomy heart failure and bridge-to-transplant scenarios.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 75 patients receiving ABIOMED BVS since 1990.
- Retrospective analysis of 103 patients receiving Thoratec VAD since 1992.
- Data collected on patient outcomes including hospital discharge and post-transplant survival.
Main Results:
- ABIOMED BVS: 50% discharge for postcardiotomy heart failure; 50% transplant survival for bridge-to-transplant.
- Thoratec VAD: 60% discharge for postcardiotomy heart failure; 74% transplant survival for bridge-to-transplant.
- Thoratec VAD showed higher transplant survival rates (90%) compared to ABIOMED BVS (86%).
Conclusions:
- Thoratec VAD is versatile for short- and mid-term use in heart failure and bridge-to-transplant.
- ABIOMED BVS is not suitable for bridging patients to transplantation.
- Thoratec VAD is superior for postcardiotomy heart failure, but high costs may limit adoption.