2015
DOI: 10.1253/circj.cj-15-0419
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advantage of Pulsatility in Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling and Aortic Insufficiency Prevention During Left Ventricular Assist Device Treatment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
(18 reference statements)
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Garcia et al [10] found no difference in the level of unloading between pVAD and tVAD support, while Klotz et al [19] observed a similar degree of left ventricular (LV) pressure unloading but a significantly higher degree of volume unloading with a pVAD [19]. The general consensus is that pulsatile flow offers potential benefits over non-pulsatile flow [29,30] including increased end organ perfusion [8], better unloading of the LV [23], less risk of right ventricular failure [17], mitigation of aortic valve stenosis and improved vascular remodeling [15], better chances for recovery [20] and reduction of gastrointestinal bleeding [7,30] when compared with a continuous flow support. Although the mechanics of the last point have not fully been explained yet [28,29] it is speculated to be linked to the acquired von Willebrand syndrome due to reduced arterial pulsatility when tVADs are employed [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Garcia et al [10] found no difference in the level of unloading between pVAD and tVAD support, while Klotz et al [19] observed a similar degree of left ventricular (LV) pressure unloading but a significantly higher degree of volume unloading with a pVAD [19]. The general consensus is that pulsatile flow offers potential benefits over non-pulsatile flow [29,30] including increased end organ perfusion [8], better unloading of the LV [23], less risk of right ventricular failure [17], mitigation of aortic valve stenosis and improved vascular remodeling [15], better chances for recovery [20] and reduction of gastrointestinal bleeding [7,30] when compared with a continuous flow support. Although the mechanics of the last point have not fully been explained yet [28,29] it is speculated to be linked to the acquired von Willebrand syndrome due to reduced arterial pulsatility when tVADs are employed [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In our study, the AV was closed in more than 60% of the CF‐LVAD recipients. Previous research has shown that HF patients who are supported by CF‐LVAD had more severe aortic insufficiency than those with a pulsatile flow (PF)‐LVAD . In CF‐LVAD recipients whose AV failed to open regularly, a greater progression of aortic insufficiency was observed compared to those with AVs that opened almost every beat .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Long-term follow-up studies of patients who underwent LVAD explant show good survival and low complication rates; however, the rate of recovery in LVAD patients may be as low as 2%, and patients still face the risk of recurring heart failure. 6) The durability of recovery is significantly higher when combined with pharmacologic therapy, especially when considering the rates only in those with dilated cardiomyopathy, thus demonstrating the potential of reverse remodeling. [2][3][4] In our experience, we have found that patients with the highest potential of myocardial recovery are those with acute-onset, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, such as viral myocarditis (as seen in this case), postpartum cardiomyopathy, or tachycardiainduced cardiomyopathy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%