Outcomes following isolated right ventricular assist device as durable support for primary right heart failure: An INTERMACS analysis

Outcomes with isolated right ventricular assist devices (iRVAD) using pumps designed for the left ventricle are not well described. This study compares the clinical characteristics and outcomes of iRVAD patients to those patients treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and biventricular assist devices (BiVAD). This study consisted of patients who received iRVAD from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry (2006-2017). The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Of 20,789 patients, 26 (0.13%) received iRVAD, 17 with pulsatile flow and 9 with continuous-flow devices. Device strategy was bridge to recovery/rescue therapy in 9 (35%), bridge to transplant/decision in 14 (52%), and destination therapy in 3 (12%). Twelve (46%) patients were INTERMACS profile 1, 5 patients (19%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 13 (50%) needed mechanical ventilation. Two-year survival for patients with iRVAD (41.3%) was similar to BiVAD (45.2%) and significantly lower than LVAD (69.0%). In patients with isolated right-sided failure, long-term iRVAD support is feasible.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JHLT Open
Published
2025-04-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlto.2025.100258
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Outcomes following isolated right ventricular assist device as durable support for primary right heart failure: An INTERMACS analysis

Navin Kumar Kapur, Pavan Atluri, Allison Padegimas, Matthew Seigerman et al.
JHLT Open
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Outcomes following isolated right ventricular assist device as durable support for primary right heart failure: An INTERMACS analysis

Navin Kumar Kapur, Pavan Atluri, Allison Padegimas, Matthew Seigerman, Edo Y. Birati, Fausto Cabezas, J. Eduardo Rame, Francis D. Pagani, Matthew C. Kiernan, Robert Zhang, Jeremy A. Mazurek, Jeffrey J. Teuteberg, Edward Wilson Grandin, Keshava Rajagopal, S.L. Myers, Michael A. Acker, Guilherme H. Oliveira, James K Kirklin, Robert L. Kormos
article en

Abstract

Outcomes with isolated right ventricular assist devices (iRVAD) using pumps designed for the left ventricle are not well described. This study compares the clinical characteristics and outcomes of iRVAD patients to those patients treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and biventricular assist devices (BiVAD). This study consisted of patients who received iRVAD from the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) registry (2006-2017). The primary outcome was 2-year survival. Of 20,789 patients, 26 (0.13%) received iRVAD, 17 with pulsatile flow and 9 with continuous-flow devices. Device strategy was bridge to recovery/rescue therapy in 9 (35%), bridge to transplant/decision in 14 (52%), and destination therapy in 3 (12%). Twelve (46%) patients were INTERMACS profile 1, 5 patients (19%) required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 13 (50%) needed mechanical ventilation. Two-year survival for patients with iRVAD (41.3%) was similar to BiVAD (45.2%) and significantly lower than LVAD (69.0%). In patients with isolated right-sided failure, long-term iRVAD support is feasible.

JHLT OpenVol. 8
Tufts Medical Center (US), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US), Bar-Ilan University (IL), Thomas Jefferson University (US), University of Pittsburgh (US), Palo Alto University (US), Cornell University (US), University of Michigan (US), Thomas Jefferson University Hospital (US), Tampa General Hospital (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Michigan Medicine (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Jefferson Hospital (US), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.