Comparing Outcomes in Patients with Ischaemic and Non-ischaemic Cardiomyopathy Requiring Left Ventricular Assist Device Support—A Single Centre Experience

Sharma, Rohit K.; Prabhu, Sandeep; Jones, K. A.; Leet, Angeline; Taylor, Andrew J.

doi:10.1016/j.hlc.2012.05.195

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One additional conference abstract was identified that met the inclusion criteria; however, the authors did not provide data on mortality after LVAD implantation in a usable format (only the OR was stated), and we were unable to contact the investigators. 16 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical effectiveness of therapy with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices in nonischemic versus ischemic cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wavell

Sokolowski

Klingel

et al. 2021

cjs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Clinicians may be less inclined to consider long-term left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy in end-stage heart failure (ESHF) as a result of nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) versus ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) owing to potentially greater right ventricular involvement in the former; however, it is unknown whether the cause of heart failure has a clinically meaningful effect on outcomes following LVAD implantation. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine whether ischemic versus nonischemic etiology has any impact on patient-relevant outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English between Jan. 1, 2000, and Nov. 22, 2018, that examined survival and transplantation rates following LVAD implantation in patients with NICM or ICM. Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series with a sample size of at least 8 patients were eligible for inclusion. To be included in the meta-analysis, outcomes had to include at least death reported at 30 days or 1 year after LVAD implantation. Quality of included studies was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) quality-assessment tool was used to assess outcomes (30-d survival, 1-yr survival and cardiac transplantation following LVAD therapy) across studies. Results: From a total of 2843 citations identified, 7 studies met all inclusion criteria. Studies were generally of good quality, but reporting of patient demographic characteristics, outcomes and complications was heterogeneous. We found no significant difference in 30-day or 1-year survival or in cardiac transplantation rates after device implantation between the NICM and ICM groups. Patients in the 2 groups had similar outcomes up to 1 year with LVAD therapy. Conclusion: Early outcomes of LVAD therapy do not appear to be affected by heart failure etiology. Ongoing investigation is required to determine the long-term outcomes of LVAD therapy in ICM and NICM. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO register, record ID 76483

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%