There are only 2 treatments for the thousands of patients who progress to the most advanced form of heart failure despite the application of guideline-based medical therapy, use of ventricular assist devices and heart transplantation. There has been a great deal of progress in both of these therapies that have led to improved outcomes including significant improvement in survival and functional capacity. Heart transplantation offers the best short- and long-term survival for patients with end-stage heart failure, and the majority of these recipients achieve relatively limitless functional capacity for their age. However, the chronic shortage of available donors limits the number of recipients in the United States to an only 2500 patients/y or only a fraction of potential candidates. The significant improvement in outcomes now possible with durable ventricular assist devices has led to a significant increase in their use, which now exceeds the volume of heart transplants in the United States, with the greatest growth in use for those not considered to be candidates for heart transplantation, previously referred to as destination therapy. This article will review the substantial progress that has taken place for both of these life-saving treatment options, as well as the future directions.

IMPORTANCE With continuing improvements in medical devices and more than a decade since the 2006 United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation policy, it is pertinent to assess survival among patients on the heart transplantation waiting list, especially given the recently approved 2018 UNOS allocation policy.OBJECTIVES To assess survival outcomes among patients on the heart transplant waiting list during the past 3 decades and to examine the association of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and the 2006 UNOS allocation policy with survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA retrospective cross-sectional used the UNOS database to perform an analysis of 95 323 candidates wait-listed for heart transplantation between January 1, 1987, and December 29, 2017. Candidates for all types of combined transplants were excluded (n = 2087). Patients were followed up from the time of listing to death, transplantation, or removal from the list due to clinical improvement. Competing-risk, Kaplan-Meier, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe analysis involved an unadjusted and adjusted survival analysis in which the primary outcome was death on the waiting list. Because of changing waiting list preferences and policies during the study period, the intrinsic risk of death for wait-listed candidates was assessed by individually analyzing, comparing, and adjusting for several candidate risk factors. RESULTSIn total, 95 323 candidates (72 915 men [76.5%]; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [12.0] years) were studied. In the setting of changes in listing preferences, 1-year survival on the waiting list increased from 34.1% in 1987-1990 to 67.8% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.34%; 95% CI, 0.32%-0.36%; P < .001). The 1-year waiting list survival for candidates with VADs increased from 10.2% in 1996-2000 to 70.0% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.60%; 95% CI, 0.58%-0.62%; P < .001). Similarly, in the setting of changing mechanical circulatory support indications, the 1-year waiting list survival for patients without VADs increased from 53.9% in 1996-2000 to 66.5% in 2011-2017 (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In the decade prior to the 2006 UNOS allocation policy, the 1-year waiting list survival was 51.1%, while in the decade after it was 63.9% (difference in proportions, 0.13%; 95% CI, 0.12%-0.14%; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, each time period after 1987-1990 had a marked decrease in waiting list mortality.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found temporally associated increases in heart transplant waiting list survival for all patient groups (with or without VADs, UNOS status 1 and status 2 candidates, and candidates with poor functional status).

Operative mortality in ESRD patients is comparable between mechanical and tissue valve replacement. Major bleeding episodes are significantly higher after mechanical valve replacement but structural degeneration in tissue valves during the follow-up period is low. Based on the findings from this meta-analysis, we would recommend using tissue valves in patients with ESRD.

Implantable continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) are used for long-term LV support in bridging patients to heart transplantation or as destination therapy. With prolonged support times, some patients will have repeat complications necessitating multiple device exchanges. To elucidate the safety and efficacy of repeat device exchange, we retrospectively reviewed data from 25 patients who underwent two or more CF-LVAD implantations between July 2005 and August 2017. Indications for exchange were thrombus/hemolysis (n = 8, 32%), electromechanical device malfunction (n = 14, 56%), and infection (n = 3, 12%). The implanted devices were the HeartMate II (n = 13, 52%), the HeartWare HVAD (n = 11, 44%), and the Jarvik 2000 (n = 1, 4%). Average hospital length of stay was 44 days (range 4–221 days), and 17 patients (68%) survived to discharge. Average duration of support after the most recent LVAD implantation was 802 days (range 1–3,229 days). Overall survival was 72% at 1 year and 60% at 2 years. Postoperative complications included respiratory failure in five patients (20%), device infection in five (20%), bleeding requiring reoperation in four (16%), neurologic dysfunction in four (16%), and acute renal failure in two (8%). Overall, our data suggest that repeat LVAD exchange is a feasible option for patients with recurrent device-related complications.

In appropriately selected patients, sLOS following minimalist TAVR approach in an experienced and high volume center is feasible and safe. Implementing such a strategy may reduce medical costs with the potential clinical benefit of early re-habilitation for the elderly TAVR population.