Literature DB >> 16399526

Effect of mechanical circulatory support on outcomes after heart transplantation.

Stavros G Drakos1, Abdallah G Kfoury, James W Long, James C Stringham, Edward M Gilbert, Stephanie A Moore, Beverly K Campbell, Karl E Nelson, Benjamin D Horne, Dale G Renlund.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) before heart transplantation was previously associated with worse post-transplant outcomes than when MCS was not required. Given the changes in technology, expertise, patient selection, and timing of subsequent transplantation, we hypothesized that patients who require MCS before heart transplantation have similar outcomes after transplantation as those not requiring pre-transplant MCS.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 278 patients who underwent cardiac transplantation from 1993 to 2002. MCS was required in 72 patients (HeartMate LVAS in 66, CardioWest Total Artificial Heart in 6) and was not required in 206 patients. The influence of pre-transplant MCS on post-transplant outcomes was assessed in the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics (age, gender, etiology of heart failure, history of diabetes mellitus, and donor age and gender) were similar in the 2 groups. One-month and 1-year survival after transplantation did not differ between the groups (MCS, 92% and 85%, respectively vs no MCS, 97% and 92%, respectively). Similar proportions of patients were free from rejection (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation score >or=3A) at 1 year of follow-up (MCS, 56% vs no MCS, 52%, p = 0.60). No difference was observed between MCS and no MCS patients in other post-transplant events such as hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, extubation time, acute allograft dysfunction, reoperation rates, acute renal dysfunction, acute hepatic dysfunction, infections, arrhythmias, thromboembolic complications, neurologic complications, gastrointestinal complications and the development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. The incidence of chronic renal insufficiency was actually lower in the MCS Group (15.3% vs 37.9%, p = .001).
CONCLUSION: Post-transplant outcomes after pre-transplant use of MCS are similar to those when MCS is not required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16399526     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2005.07.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant        ISSN: 1053-2498            Impact factor:   10.247


  4 in total

1.  Risk factors for early death in patients bridged to transplant with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

Authors:  George J Arnaoutakis; Timothy J George; Arman Kilic; Claude A Beaty; Eric S Weiss; John V Conte; Ashish S Shah
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 4.330

Review 2.  A ventricular assist device as a bridge to recovery, decision making, or transplantation in patients with advanced cardiac failure.

Authors:  Siyamek Neragi-Miandoab
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2012-07-20       Impact factor: 2.549

3.  Prior human leukocyte antigen-allosensitization and left ventricular assist device type affect degree of post-implantation human leukocyte antigen-allosensitization.

Authors:  Stavros G Drakos; Abdallah G Kfoury; John R Kotter; Bruce B Reid; Stephen E Clayson; Craig H Selzman; Josef Stehlik; Patrick W Fisher; Mario Merida; David D Eckels; Kim Brunisholz; Benjamin D Horne; Sandi Stoker; Dean Y Li; Dale G Renlund
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 10.247

4.  Ventricular assist devices as bridge to heart transplantation: impact on post-transplant infections.

Authors:  Delphine Héquet; Georg Kralidis; Thierry Carrel; Alexia Cusini; Christian Garzoni; Roger Hullin; Pascal R Meylan; Paul Mohacsi; Nicolas J Mueller; Frank Ruschitzka; Piergiorgio Tozzi; Christian van Delden; Maja Weisser; Markus J Wilhelm; Manuel Pascual; Oriol Manuel
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.090

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.