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
  • [21] Cardiac allograft rejection hi the current era of continuous flow left ventricular assist devices
    Bakir, Nadia H.
    Finnan, Michael J.
    MacGregor, Robert M.
    Schilling, Joel D.
    Ewald, Gregory A.
    Kotkar, Kunal D.
    Itoh, Akinobu
    Damiano, Ralph J., Jr.
    Moon, Marc R.
    Masood, Muhammad F.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2022, 163 (01) : 124 - +
  • [22] Echocardiography and Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices Evidence and Limitations
    Cohen, David G.
    Thomas, James D.
    Freed, Benjamin H.
    Rich, Jonathan D.
    Sauer, Andrew J.
    JACC-HEART FAILURE, 2015, 3 (07) : 554 - 564
  • [23] Continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices: Management in the emergency department
    Hockstein, Maxwell A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS OPEN, 2020, 1 (04) : 362 - 370
  • [24] The risk of right ventricular failure with current continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices
    Loforte, Antonio
    Grigioni, Francesco
    Marinelli, Giuseppe
    EXPERT REVIEW OF MEDICAL DEVICES, 2017, 14 (12) : 969 - 983
  • [25] Benefits of Neurohormonal Therapy in Patients With Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Yousefzai, Rayan
    Brambatti, Michela
    Tran, Hao A.
    Pedersen, Rachel
    Braun, Oscar O.
    Baykaner, Tina
    Ghashghaei, Roxana
    Sulemanjee, Nasir Z.
    Cheema, Omar M.
    Rappelt, Matthew
    Baeza, Carmela
    Alkhayyat, Abdulaziz
    Shi, Yang
    Pretorius, Victor
    Greenberg, Barry
    Adler, Eric
    Thohan, Vinay
    ASAIO JOURNAL, 2020, 66 (04) : 409 - 414
  • [26] The Physiological Rationale for Incorporating Pulsatility in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Grosman-Rimon, Liza
    Billia, Filio
    Kobulnik, Jeremy
    Bar-Ziv, Stacey Pollock
    Cherney, David Z.
    Rao, Vivek
    CARDIOLOGY IN REVIEW, 2018, 26 (06) : 294 - 301
  • [27] A qualitative study of life with a left ventricular assist device as a bridge to transplant: A new normal
    Krimminger, Dawn M.
    Sledge, Jennifer A.
    INTENSIVE AND CRITICAL CARE NURSING, 2022, 71
  • [28] Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients Supported by Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Garan, Arthur R.
    Iyer, Vivek
    Whang, William
    Mody, Kanika P.
    Yuzefpolskaya, Melana
    Colombo, Paolo C.
    Te-Frey, Rosie
    Takayama, Hiroo
    Naka, Yoshifumi
    Garan, Hasan
    Jorde, Ulrich P.
    Uriel, Nir
    ASAIO JOURNAL, 2014, 60 (03) : 311 - 316
  • [29] Survival in Elderly Patients Supported With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Device as Bridge to Transplantation or Destination Therapy
    Rosenbaum, Andrew N.
    John, Ranjit
    Liao, Kenneth K.
    Adatya, Sirtaz
    Colvin-Adams, Monica M.
    Pritzker, Marc
    Eckman, Peter M.
    JOURNAL OF CARDIAC FAILURE, 2014, 20 (03) : 161 - 167
  • [30] National Trends and Outcomes of Patients Bridged to Transplant With Continuous Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices
    Fugar, S.
    Okoh, A. K.
    Eshun, D.
    Yirerong, J.
    Appiah, L. T.
    Mbachi, C.
    Legge, T.
    Camacho, M.
    Russo, M. J.
    TRANSPLANTATION PROCEEDINGS, 2019, 51 (03) : 852 - 858