The comparision between two continuous-flow long term ventricular assist devices for mid and long term results

failure is a functional or structural disorder of the heart which is characterized by deficiency to offer enough oxygen to the tissues in spite of normal filling pressures. The aim of the treatment of the heart failure, is to fix the symptoms, prevent the hospitalizations, and increase the survival. There are some modalities about the pathophysiology and medical treatments of heart failure. In end stage heart failure cases, surgical treatment procedures must be considered, if advanced haemodynamic instability still persist, although appropriate medical treatment and inotropic support. The aim of this study is to compare Heartmate II and Heartware Left Ventricular Assist Devices in terms of various condition like timing of implantation, choosing the device, and preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters and improving the survival time and life quality in mechanically supported heart failure patients. 55 patients enrolled the study who were performed the LVAD implantation in electively conditions between 2011, January and 2014 August. In our study groups preoperative echocardiographic evaluations, haemogram and biochemistricaly test results and technical or anatomical difficulties like redo operation were similar. Only differences between sub-groups in the study was the age and Heartmate II sub-group were statistically significantly older then Heartware sub-group. There was no differences between sub-grups in conditions like blood and blood products using and, postoperative ICU stays. The higher risk of intra device thrombus in Heartware sub-groups (p=0,042), especially diagnosed as DCMP patients (p=0,046), and there was significantly higher risk of cerebrovascular event caused by hemorrhagically and ischemically reasons in Heartware patients (p=0,036), In spite of for cerebrovascular event caused by ischemic reasons, Heartware has significantly higher risk (p=0,018), in haemorrhagical CVE there was no difference between sub-groups. The higher risk of driveline place infections in Heartmate II patients (p=0,039). There was no differences in post-operative parameters like survival, revision surgery requirements, hepatic or renal failure, readmissions, the development of infection and gastro-intestinal bleeding. Most common causes of readmissions in LVAD patients were, the driveline place infections (n=7), respiratory failure (n=6), intra-device thrombus (n=3), right ventricle failure (n=3), unregulated INR levels (n=3), infections except driveline place. There was no differences between two sub-groups in readmission causes. The common result of our study and the other similar studies, requiring multicenter studies including large patient populations for determining optimal implantation timing, developing optimum anticoagulant medication that prevent thromboembolic events and does not cause bleeding, predicting the post operative complications like intra-device thrombus, liver or renal failure, right ventricle or aortic failure