Volume 89, Issue 4 pp. E104-E111
Coronary Artery Disease (E-only Articles)

Evaluating the quality of implantation of percutaneous ventricular restoration device (Parachute®) by cardiac computed tomography

Mohamad Amer Alaiti MD

Mohamad Amer Alaiti MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Anas Fares MD

Anas Fares MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Andrejs Erglis MD, PhD

Andrejs Erglis MD, PhD

Department of Medicine, Institute of Cardiology, University of Latvia, Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia

Search for more papers by this author
Lemba Nshisso MPH

Lemba Nshisso MPH

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Kashif Shaikh MD

Kashif Shaikh MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Anthony E. DeCicco MD

Anthony E. DeCicco MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Marwan Nasif MD

Marwan Nasif MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Ahmad Alkhalil MD

Ahmad Alkhalil MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Hüseyin Ince MD

Hüseyin Ince MD

Department of Cardiology, Vivantes Klinikum Im Friedrichshain Und Am Urban, Berlin, Germany and Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany

Search for more papers by this author
William T. Abraham MD

William T. Abraham MD

Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, the Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Daniel I. Simon MD

Daniel I. Simon MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Marco A. Costa MD, PhD

Marco A. Costa MD, PhD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Guilherme F. Attizzani MD

Guilherme F. Attizzani MD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Search for more papers by this author
Hiram G. Bezerra MD, PhD

Corresponding Author

Hiram G. Bezerra MD, PhD

Department of Medicine, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Correspondence to: Hiram G. Bezerra, MD, PhD, Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Lakeside 3113, Cleveland, OH 44106. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
First published: 29 July 2016

Mohamad Amer Alaiti and Anas Fares contributed equally to this work.

Conflict of interest: Dr. Costa and Dr. Bezerra are consultants for CardioKinetix. Marco A. Costa, Hiram Bezerra, Huseyin Ince and William T Abraham are consultants for CardioKinetix Inc, Menlo Park, CA.

Abstract

Background

The Parachute is a novel percutaneously implanted ventricular partitioning device (VPD) that has emerged as a safe and feasible treatment option for patients with heart failure following anterior wall myocardial infarction. VPD efficacy is likely dependent on optimal device placement, but to date there are no published data examining the effect of device positioning on patient outcomes.

Methods and results

We retrospectively identified 32 patients successfully implanted with the Parachute device, all of whom underwent cardiac computed tomography (CCT) at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups based on self-reported improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class: “not improved NYHA” (n = 12) and “improved NYHA” (n = 20). There were significant differences between both groups with regard to device positioning on follow-up CCT. Compared to patients with “improved NYHA,” patients with “not improved NYHA” had longer distances from device foot to left ventricular apex (8.0 ± 4.9 vs. 2.9 ± 4.6 mm; P = 0.01), and higher lateral angles (18.0 ± 14 vs. 9.1 ± 6.8 degrees; P = 0.02), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in landing zone (45.4 ± 7. vs. 45.1 ± 6.9 mm; P = 0.92) and inferior angle (14.0 ± 11.9 vs. 14.3 ± 10.1 degrees; P = 0.95). There was a numerically larger malapposition area in the “not improved NYHA” group (5.1 ± 4.5 vs. 3.2 ± 2.2 cm2; P = 0.12).

Conclusion

Quality of Parachute implant impacted clinical outcome, these findings should be applied prospectively in helping operators to achieve optimal implant. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.