ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2975-2751
Current Organisations
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
,
University Heart Center Freiburg - Bad Krozingen
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2006
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2009
DOI: 10.1016/J.JTCVS.2008.09.019
Abstract: The Jarvik 2000 (Jarvik Heart, Inc, New York, NY) is a thumb-sized high-speed impeller pump that is used as a ventricular assist device in patients with terminal heart failure. Because the Jarvik 2000 is designed for long-term use, it is a central question whether the mechanical forces inside the pump affect blood components. This study evaluated the potential association of the high rotational speed of the Jarvik 2000 with platelet activation, which may result in thromboembolic events. The study group comprised patients with terminal heart failure who were supported with the Jarvik 2000. All were men and received 100 mg aspirin daily. In 8 patients, soluble platelet activation markers (P-selectin and sCD40L), platelet counts, and hemolysis markers (haptoglobin and lactate dehydrogenase levels) were determined. In 5 patients, P-selectin expression and platelet receptor glycoprotein IIb/IIIa activation were determined with flow cytometry and compared with a control group of 5 healthy men. Platelet activation was measured at various rotational device speeds. After Jarvik 2000 implantation, increased hemolysis was observed, but platelet activation markers and platelet counts were not affected. Increased rotational speed (8000 to 12,000 rpm) of the device also did not result in increased platelet activation. The Jarvik 2000 was not associated with detectable platelet activation, despite high rotational impeller speeds.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 08-05-2018
DOI: 10.1093/EJCTS/EZY194
Abstract: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of reimplantation techniques of the supra-aortic branches in total arch replacement on the rates of permanent neurological deficit (PND) and survival. We identified patients enrolled in the ARCH registry who underwent total arch replacement between 2000 and 2015 with either en bloc or separate reimplantation of the supra-aortic branches. A total of 3345 patients were included in the present analysis. From this cohort, 686 patients underwent en bloc and 2659 patients had separate reimplantation of the supra-aortic branches. Propensity score analysis identified 461 matched patient pairs. In the matched cohort, there were no differences regarding the mortality rate (15.6% vs 15.7%, P = 0.710) or PND (9.2% vs 12.1%, P = 0.231). Although separate reimplantation of the supra-aortic branches was not associated with an increased mortality rate on multivariable logistic regression, it increased the risk of PND [odds ratio (OR) 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-2.29 P = 0.023]. Propensity-adjusted regression confirmed these findings and found a similar risk for PND with separate reimplantation of the supra-aortic branches (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.01-2.23 P = 0.047), although this significance was not found with conditional logistic regression (P = 0.20). No significant differences between survival were seen between the 2 matched cohorts (stratified log rank P = 0.35). Separate reimplantation of the supra-aortic branches in total arch replacement is a significant predictor of stroke in the overall group, although comparable stroke rates were observed in the matched cohort. The current trend towards separate reimplantation of supra-aortic branches may expose certain subgroups of patients to an increased risk of stroke, e.g. those with a high atherosclerotic burden.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 12-2013
DOI: 10.1093/EJCTS/EZT520
Abstract: A number of factors limit the effectiveness of current aortic arch studies in assessing optimal neuroprotection strategies, including insufficient patient numbers, heterogenous definitions of clinical variables, multiple technical strategies, inadequate reporting of surgical outcomes and a lack of collaborative effort. We have formed an international coalition of centres to provide more robust investigations into this topic. High-volume aortic arch centres were identified from the literature and contacted for recruitment. A Research Steering Committee of expert arch surgeons was convened to oversee the direction of the research. The International Aortic Arch Surgery Study Group has been formed by 41 arch surgeons from 10 countries to better evaluate patient outcomes after aortic arch surgery. Several projects, including the establishment of a multi-institutional retrospective database, randomized controlled trials and a prospectively collected database, are currently underway. Such a collaborative effort will herald a turning point in the surgical management of aortic arch pathologies and will provide better powered analyses to assess the impact of varying surgical techniques on mortality and morbidity, identify predictors for neurological and operative risk, formulate and validate risk predictor models and review long-term survival outcomes and quality-of-life after arch surgery.
No related grants have been discovered for Friedhelm Beyersdorf.