A Tale of Two Centrifugal-Flow Ventricular Assist Devices As Bridge to Heart Transplant

Alwair, Hazaim; Whitehouse, Katherine R; Slaughter, Mark S.; Trivedi, Jaimin R.

doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.03.093

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, survival was numerically best in heart transplantation recipients with pre-transplant HeartMate 3 ® support [36]. In accordance, no difference in post-transplant 1-year survival was reported by Alwair et al comparing heart transplantation recipients arriving at transplant operation with HVAD ® or HeartMate 3 ® support before the change of the national donor heart allocation in 2018 [37]. The present study is in accordance with these results, expanding the observations discussed above by the first report on 3-year post-transplant survival for heart transplantation recipients on pre-transplant Heart-Mate 3 ® device treatment.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 69%

Post-transplant survival with pre-transplant durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support in a Swiss cohort of heart transplant recipients

Hullin,

Abdurashidova,

Pitta-Gros

et al. 2023

Swiss Med Wkly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, almost half of all heart transplantation candidates arrive today at their transplant operation with durable continuous-flow mechanical circulatory support (CF-MCS). This evolution is due to a progressive increase of waiting list time and hence an increased risk of haemodynamic worsening. Longer duration of CF-MCS is associated with a higher risk of device-related complications with potential adverse impact on post-transplant outcome as suggested by recent results from the United Network of Organ Sharing of the United States. METHODS: A 2-centre Swiss heart transplantation programme conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients of theirs who underwent a transplant in the period 2008–2020. The primary aim was to determine whether post-transplant all-cause mortality is different between heart transplant recipients without or with pre-transplant CF-MCS. The secondary outcome was the acute cellular rejection score within the first year post-transplant. RESULTS: The study participants had a median age of 54 years; 38/158 (24%) were females. 53/158 study participants (34%) had pre-transplant CF-MCS with a median treatment duration of 280 days. In heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS, the prevalence of ischaemic cardiomyopathy was higher (51 vs 32%; p = 0.013), the left ventricular ejection fraction was lower (20 vs 25; p = 0.047) and pulmonary vascular resistance was higher (2.3 vs 2.1 Wood Units; p = 0.047). Over the study period, the proportion of heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS and the duration of pre-transplant CF-MCS treatment increased (2008–2014 vs 2015–2020: 22% vs 45%, p = 0.009; increase of treatment days per year: 34.4 ± 11.2 days, p = 0.003; respectively). The primary and secondary outcomes were not different between heart transplant recipients with pre-transplant CF-MCS or direct heart transplantation (log-rank p = 0.515; 0.16 vs 0.14, respectively; p = 0.81). CONCLUSION: This data indicates that the strategy of pre-transplant CF-MCS with subsequent orthotopic heart transplantation provides post-transplant outcomes not different to direct heart transplantation despite the fact that the duration of pre-transplant assist device treatment has progressively increased.

show abstract

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 69%