Timing and Outcomes of Concurrent and Sequential Biventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs Analysis

BACKGROUND Biventricular heart failure remains a clinically challenging condition to manage. Available literature describing the use of durable biventricular assist device (BiVAD) support has numerous limitations hindering the development of useful treatment algorithms. Analysis of BiVAD use within a large multicenter data set is needed to clarify outcomes associated with this therapy. METHODS The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs database was queried to identify adults aged double dagger 18 years who received durable circulatory support from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2220. The data set was divided into the following cohorts: (1) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) only (n = 27,325), (2) LVAD and concurrent right ventricular assist device (RVAD) (n = 1090), and (3) LVAD and sequential RVAD (n = 556). Propensity score matching was used to compare 1-year mortality and adverse events between concurrent (n = 565) and sequential BiVADs (n = 565). RESULTS Overall survival within 1 year was significantly worse for the BiVAD cohort compared with the LVAD-only cohort (12-month survival: 50.8% vs 82.6%; log-rank P < .001). In a propensity-matched cohort, patients implanted with a BiVAD concurrently had an improved survival compared with those implanted an LVAD and an RVAD sequentially (12-month survival: 55.8% vs 41.8%; log-rank P < .001). Early (< 3 months) adverse event rates were higher among patients receiving sequential BiVADs for bleeding, infection, neurologic dysfunction, and renal dysfunction (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS After matching for patient and disease characteristics, patients with sequential BiVAD implantation have worse outcomes than patients with concurrent BiVAD implantation.