Literature DB >> 21676630

Stable patients on left ventricular assist device support have a disproportionate advantage: time to re-evaluate the current UNOS policy.

Nader Moazami1, Benjamin Sun, David Feldman.   

Abstract

Over the years, policies adopted by United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) have directed allocation of donor hearts in the USA. These policies have been based on algorithms that allocate a higher priority status to those patients who are the most infirm, and would thereby benefit patients in the most dire of circumstances. Over the last 2 decades, the increased use of LVADs as a bridge to transplantation has had a major impact on lowering the mortality among those on the heart transplant waiting list. Given the constant risk of potential complications related to these devices, early UNOS policies were implemented to specifically allocate higher priority status to patients on LVADs. However, recent advances in LVAD technology coupled with refinements in patient selection and management have dramatically improved patient survival and led to a reduction in complications. It is inevitable that favorable experiences with the current generation of LVADs coupled with continued improvements in technology will lead to increased use of these devices as a bridge to transplantation or to candidacy.
Copyright © 2011 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21676630     DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2011.05.004

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Ventricular assist devices: pharmacological aspects of a mechanical therapy.

Authors:  O Wever-Pinzon; J Stehlik; A G Kfoury; J V Terrovitis; N A Diakos; C Charitos; D Y Li; S G Drakos
Journal:  Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-01-16       Impact factor: 12.310

Review 2.  Adult heart transplant: indications and outcomes.

Authors:  M Chadi Alraies; Peter Eckman
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Morbidity and mortality in heart transplant candidates supported with mechanical circulatory support: is reappraisal of the current United network for organ sharing thoracic organ allocation policy justified?

Authors:  Omar Wever-Pinzon; Stavros G Drakos; Abdallah G Kfoury; Jose N Nativi; Edward M Gilbert; Melanie Everitt; Rami Alharethi; Kim Brunisholz; Feras M Bader; Dean Y Li; Craig H Selzman; Josef Stehlik
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 4.  Left ventricular assist devices as a bridge to cardiac transplantation.

Authors:  Christopher T Holley; Laura Harvey; Ranjit John
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 5.  Ventricular assist device use in congenital heart disease with a comparison to heart transplant.

Authors:  Jacob R Miller; Pirooz Eghtesady
Journal:  J Comp Eff Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.744

6.  Assessing Consequences of Intraaortic Balloon Counterpulsation Versus Left Ventricular Assist Devices at the Time of Heart Transplantation.

Authors:  Anthony W Castleberry; Adam D DeVore; Kevin W Southerland; James M Meza; William D Irish; Joseph G Rogers; Carmelo A Milano; Chetan B Patel
Journal:  ASAIO J       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.872

7.  Four-year outcomes with third-generation centrifugal left ventricular assist devices in an era of restricted transplantation.

Authors:  Faruk Özalp; Sai Bhagra; Catriona Bhagra; Tanveer Butt; Bandigowdanapalya Ramesh; Nicola Robinson-Smith; Neil Wrightson; Gareth Parry; Massimo Griselli; Asif Hasan; Stephan Schueler; Guy A MacGowan
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 4.191

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.