Optimal Timing of Heart Transplant After HeartMate II Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2019
Objectives: Due to the scarcity of donor hearts to meet recipient demands, more than 40% of heart transplants are performed in patients bridged to transplant (BTT) with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). The objective of this study was to determine the effect of BTT duration with an LVAD on posttransplant outcomes. Methods: From 2009 to 2014, we identified 2639 fee-for-service Medicare patients who underwent a primary heart transplants with 1186 (45%) patients BTT with an LVAD. The LVAD patients were stratified as BTT 31 days (n ¼ 28 [2.4%]), BTT 31-365 days (n ¼ 748 [63.1%]), and BTT >365 days (n ¼ 409 [34.5%]). Patients went directly to heart transplantation and were not bridged in 1453 cases (55%). LVAD duration was analyzed dichotomously and as a continuous variable with adjusted overall survival as the primary end point. Results: All-cause mortality was significantly worse in patients who were BTT <31 days. Survival at 30 days was 81.5% for BTT <31 days, 94% for BTT 31 to 365 days, 95% for BTT >365 days, and 94% for no BTT. At 1 year, survival was 74% for BTT <31 days, 85% for BTT 31 to 365 days, 88% for BTT >365 days, and 89% for no BTT (P ¼ .018). When LVAD duration was analyzed as a continuous variable, patients BTT with an LVAD<34 days had significantly increased mortality. Conclusions: Patients who underwent heart transplantation within the first month of BTT with an LVAD had significantly increased mortality. However, there was no survival difference among patients who were BTT with an LVAD longer than 31 days.
The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2014
Continued donor organ shortage and improved outcomes with current left ventricular assist device (LVAD) technology have increased the number of patients supported with bridge-to-transplantation (BTT) therapy. Using the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, we assessed the impact on survival in patients supported with BTT while on the heart transplant waiting list. The UNOS database was queried from January 2005 to June 2012 to identify patients listed for heart transplantation as UNOS status 1A or 1B. Patients implanted with a pulsatile-flow device or an LVAD other than the HeartMate II (HM II; Thoratec Inc, Pleasanton, CA) were excluded. Patients were divided into LVAD and non-LVAD groups based on status at the time of listing. Patients were propensity matched (LVAD -non-LVAD = 1:2) for age, sex, weight, presence of diabetes, creatinine levels, mean pulmonary artery pressure, and UNOS status. Kaplan-Meier curves were analyzed for survival. A total of 8,688 patients were ...
HeartMate Left Ventricular Assist Device as Bridge to Heart Transplantation
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 1998
Background. Because of the limited supply of donor hearts, prospective recipients continue to die while on the waiting list for heart transplantation. Use of longterm mechanical circulatory support devices as a bridge to transplantation may reduce this mortality. However, with the present state of technology, continued clinical evaluation of the various long-term, mechanical circulatory support devices available is mandatory.
Mid-term survival after continuous-flow left ventricular assist device versus heart transplantation
Heart and Vessels, 2015
Background-There is a paucity of data about mid-term outcome of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) treated with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in Europe, where donor shortage and their aging limit the availability and the probability of success of heart transplantation (HTx). The aim of this study is to compare Italian single-centre mid-term outcome in prospective patients treated with LVAD versus HTx.
The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 2008
Objective: Left ventricular assist devices are increasingly used as a bridge to transplantation. It remains unclear whether the use of pretransplant left ventricular assist devices adversely affects short-term survival after cardiac transplantation. Methods: A retrospective review of 317 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac transplantation at an academic center between 1986 and 2006 was undertaken. Left ventricular assist devices were used pretransplant in 23 of these 317 patients, and 294 patients did not require left ventricular assist device support. Patients with a left ventricular assist device were supported with a Heartmate VE or Heartmate XVE (Thoratec Corp, Pleasanton, Calif). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared between the left ventricular assist device group and the non-left ventricular assist device group using the log-rank test. In addition, occurrence of death was analyzed between the 2 groups with a chi-square analysis. The results are expressed as 1-year survival with 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Results: The 1-year survival for all 317 patients was 0.86 (0.82-0.90). The patient survival for the group without a left ventricular assist device before cardiac transplant was 0.87 (0.83-0.90), and the survival for the group with a left ventricular assist device as bridge to transplantation was 0.83 (0.67-0.98; P 5 .77). For the deaths that occurred in all 317 patients, 19% of the patients without left ventricular assist devices died within 30 days of transplant, whereas 80% of the patients with left ventricular assist devices died within 30 days of transplant (P , .01). Conclusion: When used as a bridge to transplantation, left ventricular assist devices do not compromise 1-year survival after cardiac transplantation. Of the patients who die after transplantation, patients bridged with left ventricular assist devices are at higher risk for death within 30 days of transplant. These data suggest that left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to transplantation should be considered for appropriately selected patients awaiting cardiac transplantation.
Transplantation Proceedings, 2019
Background. Continuous flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVAD) are widely used as a bridge to transplantation (BTT) among patients with advanced heart failure. The primary outcome of the current study was to study the incidence of waitlist mortality and morbidity of CF-LVAD patients bridged to heart transplantation in the current BTT era and to determine the factors that increased their risk of delisting. Methods. Patients who were bridged to heart transplant with a CF-LVAD between April 2008 and September 2015 were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing heart transplant registry. They were then categorized based on the development of complications. Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used for time-to-event analysis for the primary outcome. Results. Out of 7070 patients who were bridged to heart transplant, 2510 (36%) developed device-related complications. The primary outcome was present in 1631 of 7070 patients (23%). Independent predictors of primary outcome were age, ABO blood group, etiology of cardiomyopathy, and history of diabetes mellitus. Developing one device-related complication was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.59 of having the primary outcome. The HR increased to 3.45 when !2 of the defined complications occurred. In patients who developed the primary outcome, they most likely had a device infection (odds ratio 2.51). Conclusion. Findings from the current study add to the existing literature about the incidence of morbidity and mortality in the current BTT era. Development of one devicerelated complication increases the risk of death or delisting among patients on the heart transplant waitlist; however, this risk almost doubles when 2 or more complications occur.