Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A subcostal approach is favorable compared to sternotomy for left ventricular assist device exchange field of research: artificial heart (clinical)

  • Original Article
  • Artificial Heart (Clinical)
  • Published:
Journal of Artificial Organs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 08 July 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

This is a single-center retrospective study to summarize clinical outcomes of patients requiring surgical continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (HeartMate II) exchange. The patients who underwent HeartMate II exchange were divided into two groups either via a subcostal approach (SC group) or a full sternotomy (FS group). The exclusion criteria of a subcostal approach for device exchange included the presence of outflow graft obstruction, and/or the need for concomitant cardiac procedures. Among 277 consecutive patients who underwent HeartMate II implantation from July 2008 to December 2015, 25 patients (9.0%) required device exchange (SC group; N = 13, FS group; N = 12). The SC group, compared to the FS group, had a shorter operative time (200.6 ± 31.4 min vs 534.2 ± 123.9 min; P < 0.001), shorter cardiopulmonary bypass time (33.1 ± 22.0 min vs 151.5 ± 53.1 min; P < 0.001), fewer blood transfusion (0.31 ± 0.48 units vs 4.67 ± 3.65 units; P = 0.002). The SC group had lower incidence of postoperative prolonged intubation (> 24 h) (7.7% vs 90.9%, P < 0.001), tracheostomy (0.0% vs 41.7%, P = 0.015), acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (0.0% vs 33.3%, P = 0.039). In-hospital mortality was 0.0% (0/13) in the SC group and 16.7% (2/12) in the FS group (P = 0.220). In conclusion, a subcostal approach was associated with shorter operative time, fewer blood transfusions, and less postoperative complications, compared to full sternotomy. A subcostal approach, if feasible, is preferred for HeartMate II device exchange.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 08 July 2020

    In the original publication, the title of the article was published incorrectly.

References

  1. Starling RC, Moazami N, Silevestry SC, Ewald G, Rogers JG, Milano CA, et al. Unexpected abrupt increase in left ventricular assist device thrombosis. N Eng J Med. 2014;370:33–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Xie A, Phan K, Yan TD. Durability of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: a systematic review. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;3:547–56.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ota T, Yerebakan H, Akashi H, Takayama H, Uriel N, Colombo PC, et al. Continuous-flow left ventricular assist device exchange: clinical outcomes. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2014;33:65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Soleimani B, Stephenson ER, Price LC, El-Banayosy A, Pae WE. Clinical experience with sternotomy versus subcostal approach for exchange of HeartMate II left ventricular assist device. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1577–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Levin AP, Uriel N, Takayama H, Mody KP, Ota T, Yuzefpolskaya M, et al. Device exchange in HeartMate II recipients: long-term outcomes and risk of thrombosis recurrence. ASAIO J. 2015;61:144–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Uriel N, Morrison KA, Garan AR, Kato TS, Yuzefpolskaya M, Latif F, et al. Development of a novel echocardiography ramp test for speed optimization and diagnosis of device thrombosis in continuous flow left ventricular assist devices: the Columbia Ramp Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1764–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nishimura T, Ota T, Takayama H, Naka Y. Subcostal to rib-cross incision for HeartMate II explantation: a case report. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:e16–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levin AP, Saeed O, Willey JZ, Levin CJ, Fried JA, Patel SR, et al. Watchful waiting in continuous-flow left ventricular assist device patients with ongoing hemolysis is associated with an increased risk for cerebrovascular accident or death. Circ Heart Fail. 2016;9:e002896.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Stulak JM, Dunlay SM, Sharma S, Haglund NA, Davis MB, Cowger J, et al. Treatment of device thrombus in the HeartWare HVAD: Success and outcomes depend siginificantly on the initial treatment strategy. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2015;34:1535–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Raffa GM, D’Ancona G, Romano G, Falletta C, Sciacca S, Todaro C, et al. Should device replacement be the first choice strategy in continuous-flow left ventricle assist device thrombosis? Analysis of 9 events and results after endoventricular thrombolysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015;15:159–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saeed D, Maxhera B, Albert A, Westenfeld R, Hoffmann T, Lichtenberg A. Conservative approaches for HeartWare ventricular assist device pump thrombosis may improve the outcome compared with immediate surgical approaches. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;23:90–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oezpeker C, Zittermann A, Ensminger S, Kizner L, Koster A, Sayin A, et al. Systemic thrombolysis versus device exchange for pump thrombosis management: a single-center experience. ASAIO J. 2016;62:246–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hammel D, Tjan DT, Scheld HH, Schmid C, Loick M, Deng MC. Successful treatment of a Novacor LVAD malfunction without repeat sternotomy. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;46:154–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ochiai Y, McCarthy PM, Smedira NG, Banbury MK, Navia JL, Feng J, et al. Predictors of severe right ventricular failure after implantable left ventricular assist device insertion: analysis of 245 patients. Circulation. 2002;106:198–202.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Furukawa K, Motomura T, Nose Y. Right ventricular failure after left ventricular assist device implantation: the need for an implantable right ventricular assist device. Artif Organs. 2005;29:369–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chen JM, Levin HR, Rose EA, Addonizio LJ, Landry DW, Sistino JJ, et al. Experience with right ventricular assist devices for perioperative right sided circulatory failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:305–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pegg TJ, Selvanayagam JB, Karamitsos TD, Arnold RJ, Francis JM, Neubauer S, et al. Effects of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on early and late right ventricular function. Circulation. 2008;117:2202–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kormos RL, Gasior TA, Kawai A, Pham SM, Murali S, Hattler BG, et al. Transplant candidate’s clinical status rather than right ventricular function defines need for univentricular versus biventricular support. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;111:773–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Section of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery, The University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Ave., MC 5040, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Hiroto Kitahara, Tae Song, David Onsager, Valluvan Jeevanandam & Takeyoshi Ota

  2. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, The University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jayant Raikhelkar, Gene Kim, Nitasha Sarswat, Gabriel Sayer & Nir Uriel

Authors
  1. Hiroto Kitahara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jayant Raikhelkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gene Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nitasha Sarswat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gabriel Sayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nir Uriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tae Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. David Onsager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Valluvan Jeevanandam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Takeyoshi Ota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takeyoshi Ota.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr Valluvan Jeevanandam discloses that he receives consultant fees from Abbott. Dr Nir Uriel discloses that he receives consultant fees and grant supports from Abbott, and Medtronic.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kitahara, H., Raikhelkar, J., Kim, G. et al. A subcostal approach is favorable compared to sternotomy for left ventricular assist device exchange field of research: artificial heart (clinical). J Artif Organs 22, 181–187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-019-01102-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-019-01102-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation