Advertisement

A case of HeartMate II implantation in non-dilated left ventricle

  • Akiko ManoEmail author
  • Takashi NishimuraEmail author
  • Tomohiro Murata
  • Mitsuhiro Kawata
  • Shunei Kyo
Case Report Artificial Heart (Clinical)
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Left ventricular assist device is an established therapeutic option for the patient with end-stage heart failure. Recently, durable continuous-flow devices have replaced earlier generation of pulsatile devices and their desirable features are accelerating the utilization of these devices. However, their powerful performance could sometimes induce unfavorable complications such as sucking, especially in not so dilated left ventricle. Special maneuvers such as cannula position and lower pump speed may be reasonable for patients with non-dilated left ventricular, however, those managements have not been established yet to date. Right ventricular failure is also another concern in these devices. We experienced a patient who got a HeartMate II in spade-shaped, non-dilated left ventricle concomitant with right ventricular dysfunction, and successfully managed her.

Keywords

HeartMate II Non-dilated left ventricle Low pump speed 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Chieko Sakurayama and Mr. Teppei Maeda for their assistance with echocardiographic data collection and analysis.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kukucka M, Stepanenko A, Potapov E, et al. Right-to-left ventricular end-diastolic diameter ratio and prediction of right ventricular failure with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2011;30:64–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Komoda T, Drews T, Hetzer R, et al. Lower body surface area is highly related to mortality due to stroke or systemic bleeding in patients receiving an axial flow blood pump as a left ventricular assist device. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43:1036–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ono M, Sawa Y, Nakatani T, et al. Japanese multicenter outcomes with the HeartMate II left ventricular assist device in the patients with small body surface area. Circ J. 2016;80:1931–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirklin JK, Naftel DC, Pagani FD, et al. Seventh INTERMACS annual report: 15,000 patients and counting. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2015;34:1495–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee S, Katz JN, Jorde UP, et al. Outcomes of adult patients with small body size supported with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device. ASAIO J 2016;62:646–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Volkovicher N, Kurihara C, Critsinelis A, et al. Outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure and small body size undergoing continuous-flow left ventricular assist device implantation. J Artif Organs. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-017-0988-z.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Department of Cardiothoracic SurgeryTokyo Metropolitan Geriatric HospitalTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations