Cerebrovascular Accident Rate Is Different Between Centrifugal and Axial-Flow Pumps, but Survival and Driveline Infection Rates Are Similar

Objectives We analyzed the outcome of patients with implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) at the University of Tokyo Hospital to compare those with centrifugal pumps (CE group: Duraheart and Evaheart) and those with axial-flow pumps (AX group: Heartmate II and Jarvik 2000). Methods A total of 68 patients who underwent implantation of LVADs (Duraheart: n = 15; Evaheart: n = 23; Heartmate II: n = 22; Jarvik 2000: n = 8) as a bridge to transplantation at our institution from May 2011 to April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were followed through December 2015. Results The mean follow-up time of the CE group was 1.95 ± 0.92 year (total 74.1 patient-years) and that of the AX group was 1.56 ± 0.56 year (total 46.8 patient-years). Whether the patients underwent centrifugal or axial-flow pump implantations was not associated with survival or driveline infection according to log-rank test (1-year survival rate: 89% vs 100% [P = .221]; 1-year freedom rate: 40% vs 43% [P = .952]). The rates of freedom from cerebrovascular accident (CVA) at 1 year after LVAD implantation in the CE and AX groups were 70% and 96%, respectively (P < .001). The CE group showed a higher frequency of CVA (0.472 vs 0.021 event per patient-year). Conclusions Our findings indicate that overall survival and driveline infection rates are similar between centrifugal and axial-flow pumps, but they suggest that patients with centrifugal pumps are more likely to develop CVAs than those with axial-flow pumps.