Results of new-generation intrapericardial continuous flow left ventricular assist devices as a bridge-to-transplant

被引:10
|
作者
Carrozzini, Massimiliano [1 ]
Bejko, Jonida [1 ]
Gambino, Antonio [1 ]
Tarzia, Vincenzo [1 ]
Lanera, Corrado [2 ]
Gregori, Dario [2 ]
Gerosa, Gino [1 ]
Bottio, Tomaso [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Padua, Dept Cardiac Thorac Vasc Sci & Publ Hlth, Cardiac Surg Unit, Padua, Italy
[2] Univ Padua, Dept Cardiac Thorac Vasc Sci & Publ Hlth, Unit Biostat Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Padua, Italy
关键词
bridge-to-transplant; continuous flow; heart transplant; intrapericardial; left ventricular assist device; MECHANICAL CIRCULATORY SUPPORT; ANTIBODY-MEDIATED REJECTION; 2013 INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY; WORKING FORMULATION; HEART-FAILURE; JARVIK; 2000; CARDIAC TRANSPLANTATION; TASK-FORCE; IMPLANTATION; SURVIVAL;
D O I
10.2459/JCM.0000000000000721
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Aims We analysed the outcomes with the use of a new-generation continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) as a bridge-to-transplant (BTT). Materials and methods We included all patients implanted with an intrapericardial CF-LVAD as BTT, between January 2012 and December 2016. Primary outcomes were overall survival, survival on waiting list and postheart transplant (HTx) survival. The outcomes after HTx were compared with those of a contemporary cohort of patients transplanted without previous CF-LVAD (No-LVAD group, n = 73). Results We included 53 patients with a median age of 52 years (interquartile range: 43-59 years). Seventy-two percent were in INTERMACS profile 1-2 before implant; all entered the HTx waiting list after receiving the CF-LVAD. HTx was performed in 42 (79%) cases (LVAD group). Overall estimated survival (considering both pre-HTx and post-HTx) was 89% [95% confidence interval (CI) 81-98%] at 1 year and 80% (CI 70-92%) at 2 years. The estimated survival on waiting list was 91% (CI 80-100%) at 6 months, whereas the 1-year estimated post-HTx survival was 88% (CI 79-98%). The Kaplan-Meier curves of survival after HTx of LVAD versus No-LVAD group were comparable (log-rank P = 0.54), as well as the rates of post-HTx adverse events. A multivariable model of survival after HTx, accounting for the most relevant patient characteristics, identified LVAD use as a significant protective factor [LVAD versus No-LVAD hazard ratio 0.22 (CI 0.06-0.91)]. Conclusion The use of new-generation intrapericardial CF-LVADs as a BTT resulted, in our series, in satisfactory pre-HTx and post-HTx outcomes.
引用
收藏
页码:739 / 747
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Ventricular assist devices as a bridge-to-transplant improve early post-transplant outcomes in children
    Davies, Ryan R.
    Haldeman, Shylah
    McCulloch, Michael A.
    Pizarro, Christian
    JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 33 (07): : 704 - 712
  • [2] Survival and Functional Status After Bridge-to-Transplant with a Left Ventricular Assist Device
    Suarez-Pierre, Alejandro
    Zhou, Xun
    Fraser, Charles D., III
    Grimm, Joshua C.
    Crawford, Todd C.
    Lui, Cecillia
    Valero, Vicente
    Choi, Chun W.
    Higgins, Robert S.
    Kilic, Ahmet
    ASAIO JOURNAL, 2019, 65 (07) : 661 - 667
  • [3] Third-Generation Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Nguyen, Duc Q.
    Thourani, Vinod H.
    INNOVATIONS-TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES IN CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR SURGERY, 2010, 5 (04) : 250 - 258
  • [4] Vasoplegia from Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Sathianathan, Shyama
    Bhat, Geetha
    Dowling, Robert
    CURRENT CARDIOLOGY REPORTS, 2021, 23 (08)
  • [5] Vasoplegia from Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Shyama Sathianathan
    Geetha Bhat
    Robert Dowling
    Current Cardiology Reports, 2021, 23
  • [6] Comparative cost-effectiveness of the Heart Ware versus Heart Mate II left ventricular assist devices used in the United Kingdom National Health Service bridge-to-transplant program for patients with heart failure
    Pulikottil-Jacob, Ruth
    Suri, Gaurav
    Connock, Martin
    Kandala, Ngianga-Bakwin
    Sutcliffe, Paul
    Maheswaran, Hendramoorthy
    Banner, Nicholas R.
    Clarke, Aileen
    JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2014, 33 (04): : 350 - 358
  • [7] Successful Bridge-to-Transplant of Functionally Univentricular Patients With a Modified Continuous-Flow Ventricular Assist Device
    Monge, Michael C.
    Kulat, Bradley T.
    Eltayeb, Osama
    Zingle, Neale R.
    Moss, Steven T.
    Gossett, Jeffrey G.
    Pahl, Elfriede
    Costello, John M.
    Backer, Carl L.
    ARTIFICIAL ORGANS, 2017, 41 (01) : 25 - 31
  • [8] Immunologic effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices before and after heart transplant
    Ko, Byung-Soo
    Drakos, Stavros
    Kfoury, Abdallah G.
    Hurst, Denise
    Stoddard, Gregory J.
    Willis, Carrie A.
    Delgado, Julio C.
    Hammond, Elizabeth H.
    Gilbert, Edward M.
    Alharethi, Rami
    Revelo, Monica P.
    Nativi-Nicolau, Jose
    Reid, Bruce B.
    McKellar, Stephen H.
    Wever-Pinzon, Omar
    Miller, Dylan V.
    Eckels, David D.
    Fang, James C.
    Selzman, Craig H.
    Stehlik, Josef
    JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION, 2016, 35 (08): : 1024 - 1030
  • [9] Physiologic effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices
    Healy, Aaron H.
    McKellar, Stephen H.
    Drakos, Stavros G.
    Koliopoulou, Antigoni
    Stehlik, Josef
    Selzman, Craig H.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2016, 202 (02) : 363 - 371
  • [10] Cost-utility of continuous-flow ventricular assist devices as bridge to transplant in pediatrics
    Evers, Patrick D.
    Villa, Chet
    Wittekind, Samuel G.
    Hobing, Rebecca
    Morales, David L. S.
    Lorts, Angela
    PEDIATRIC TRANSPLANTATION, 2019, 23 (08)