Advantage of Pulsatility in Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling and Aortic Insufficiency Prevention During Left Ventricular Assist Device Treatment.
BACKGROUND
A continuous flow (CF) left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has various advantages over a pulsatile flow (PF) LVAD, but the extent of preventing aortic insufficiency (AI) by each type of LVAD remains controversial.


METHODSANDRESULTS
Of 86 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent LVAD implantation between 2006 and 2015, 20 propensity score-matched patients with PF LVADs and 20 with CF LVADs were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in the baseline variables of both groups. During the 6-month LVAD treatment, the LV ejection fraction of the PF group was significantly higher than that of the CF group; the PF group also had a wider pulse pressure and less enlargement of the aortic root (P<0.05 for all). Patients in the PF group experienced more frequent opening of the native aortic valve and less AI than those in the CF group (P<0.05 for both). The PF LVAD was explanted in 5 patients (25%), and a CF LVAD was explanted in 1 patient (5%).


CONCLUSIONS
Compared with CF LVADs, PF LVADs seem to have an advantage in improving LV reverse remodeling and preventing AI. It may be best to incorporate pulsatility into current CF LVADs while retaining their existing benefits.