Background Right ventricular (RV) failure is a source of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We sought to define hemodynamic changes in afterload and RV adaption to afterload both early after implantation and with prolonged LVAD support. Methods We reviewed right heart catheterization (RHC) data from participants who underwent continuous-flow LVAD implantation at our institutions (n=244), excluding those on inotropic or vasopressor agents, pulmonary vasodilators, or additional mechanical support at any RHC. Hemodynamic data was assessed at five time intervals: 1) pre-LVAD (within 6 months), 2) early post-LVAD (0–6 months), 3) 7–12 months, 4) 13–18 months and 3) very-late post-LVAD (18–36 months). Results Sixty participants met the inclusion criteria. All measures of right ventricular load (effective arterial elastance, pulmonary vascular compliance and pulmonary vascular resistance) improved between the pre- and early post-LVAD time periods. Despite decreasing load and pulmonary capillary artery pressure (PAWP), RAP remained unchanged and the RAP:PAWP ratio worsened early post-LVAD (0.44 [0.38, 0.63] versus 0.77 [0.59, 1.0], p<0.001), suggesting a worsening of RV adaptation to load. With continued LVAD support, both RV load and RAP:PAWP decreased in a steep, linear and dependent manner. Conclusion Despite reducing RV load, LVAD implantation leads to worsened RV adaptation. With continued LVAD support, both RV afterload and RV adaptation improve, and their relationship remains constant over time post-LVAD. These findings suggest the RV afterload sensitivity increases after LVAD implantation, which has important clinical implications for patients struggling with RV failure.

No abstract

Background Port‐access (PORT) and robotic (ROBO) mitral repair are well established, but differences in patient selection and outcomes are not well documented. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 129 ROBO and 628 PORT mitral repairs at one institution. ROBO patients had 4 cm nonrib spreading incisions with robotic assistance, while PORT patients had 6–8 cm rib spreading incisions with thoracoscopic assistance. Propensity score analysis matched patients for differences in baseline characteristics. Results Unmatched ROBO patients were younger (58 ± 11 vs. 61 ± 13, p = .05), had a higher percentage of males (77% vs. 63%, p = .003) and had less NYHA Class 3–4 symptoms (11% vs. 21%, p < .01), less atrial fibrillation (19% vs. 29%, p = .02) and less tricuspid regurgitation (14% vs. 24%, p = .01). Propensity score analysis of matched patients showed that pump time (275 ± 57 vs. 207 ± 55, p < .0001) and clamp time (152 ± 38 vs. 130 ± 34, p < .0001) were longer for ROBO patients. However, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and 5‐year survival (97 ± 1% vs. 96 ± 3%, p = .7) were not different. For matched patients with degenerative valve disease, 5‐year incidence of mitral reoperation (3 ± 2% vs. 1 ± 1%), severe mitral regurgitation (MR) (6 ± 4% vs. 1 ± 1%), or ≥2 + MR (12 ± 5% vs. 12 ± 4%), were not significantly different between ROBO versus PORT approaches. Predictors of recurrent moderate MR were connective tissue disease, functional etiology, and non‐White race, but not surgical approach. Conclusions In this first comparison out to 5 years, robotic versus port‐access approach to mitral repair had longer pump and clamp times. Perioperative morbidity, 5‐year survival, and 5‐year repair durability were otherwise similar.

No abstract

No abstract