BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) listed for heart transplantation are rarely supported by ventricular assist devices (VADs). This may be a disadvantage to their priority for organ allocation. We sought to determine the relationship between VAD implantation and successful transplantation among patients listed for heart transplant. METHODS: Adults with CHD patients (N = 1,250) were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 1985 to 2010 and compared to patients without congenital etiology for heart failure (N = 59,606). VAD use at listing, listing status, status upgrades and reasons for upgrade prior to transplant were trended at 5-year intervals and appropriate statistical comparisons were made between groups. RESULTS: Since 1985, VAD use prior to transplant has increased significantly in patients without CHD, but not in CHD patients (17% vs 3% in 2006 to 2010, p < 0.0001). CHD patients were more likely to be listed as Status 2, compared to those without (66% vs 40%, p < 0.001 for 2006 to 2010), and less likely to be upgraded to Status 1 after listing (43% vs 55%, p = 0.03). Among those upgraded to Status 1, CHD patients were less likely to have a VAD at transplant than those without (3% vs 18%, p = 0.005). VAD use was more likely to result in death in CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: VAD use is less common in CHD patients than in patients without CHD, both at the time of listing and transplantation. Reduced VAD use appears to contribute to lower listing status and organ allocation. These differences have grown more disparate over time. Separate criteria for organ allocation for CHD patients may be justified.
BACKGROUND: Adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) listed for heart transplantation are rarely supported by ventricular assist devices (VADs). This may be a disadvantage to their priority for organ allocation. We sought to determine the relationship between VAD implantation and successful transplantation among patients listed for heart transplant. METHODS: Adults with CHD patients (N = 1,250) were identified from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 1985 to 2010 and compared to patients without congenital etiology for heart failure (N = 59,606). VAD use at listing, listing status, status upgrades and reasons for upgrade prior to transplant were trended at 5-year intervals and appropriate statistical comparisons were made between groups. RESULTS: Since 1985, VAD use prior to transplant has increased significantly in patients without CHD, but not in CHD patients (17% vs 3% in 2006 to 2010, p < 0.0001). CHD patients were more likely to be listed as Status 2, compared to those without (66% vs 40%, p < 0.001 for 2006 to 2010), and less likely to be upgraded to Status 1 after listing (43% vs 55%, p = 0.03). Among those upgraded to Status 1, CHD patients were less likely to have a VAD at transplant than those without (3% vs 18%, p = 0.005). VAD use was more likely to result in death in CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: VAD use is less common in CHD patients than in patients without CHD, both at the time of listing and transplantation. Reduced VAD use appears to contribute to lower listing status and organ allocation. These differences have grown more disparate over time. Separate criteria for organ allocation for CHD patients may be justified.
Authors: Mark D Rodefeld; Jack H Boyd; Cynthia D Myers; Brian J LaLone; Alex J Bezruczko; Andrew W Potter; John W Brown Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Igor I Tulevski; Ernst E van der Wall; Maarten Groenink; Ali Dodge-Khatami; Alexander Hirsch; Jaap Stoker; Barbara J M Mulder Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-05-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Thomas Oosterhof; Igor I Tulevski; Arno A W Roest; Paul Steendijk; Hubert W Vliegen; Ernst E van der Wall; Albert de Roos; Jan G P Tijssen; Barbara J M Mulder Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Elizabeth D Blume; David C Naftel; Heather J Bastardi; Brian W Duncan; James K Kirklin; Steven A Webber Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G Speziali; D J Driscoll; G K Danielson; P R Julsrud; C J Porter; J A Dearani; R C Daly; C G McGregor Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: K Anitha Jayakumar; Linda J Addonizio; Maryanne R Kichuk-Chrisant; Mark E Galantowicz; Jacqueline M Lamour; Jan M Quaegebeur; Daphne T Hsu Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Timothy Cotts; Paul Khairy; Alexander R Opotowsky; Anitha S John; Anne Marie Valente; Ali N Zaidi; Stephen C Cook; Jamil Aboulhosn; Jennifer Grando Ting; Michelle Gurvitz; Michael J Landzberg; Amy Verstappen; Joseph Kay; Michael Earing; Wayne Franklin; Brian Kogon; Craig S Broberg Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Jill M Steiner; Eric V Krieger; Karen K Stout; April Stempien-Otero; Claudius Mahr; Nahush A Mokadam; Joshua L Hermsen Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Martin Schweiger; Brian Stiasny; Hitendu Dave; Anna Cavigelli-Brunner; Christian Balmer; Oliver Kretschmar; Christoph Bürki; Dietrich Klauwer; Michael Hübler Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Werner Budts; Jolien Roos-Hesselink; Tanja Rädle-Hurst; Andreas Eicken; Theresa A McDonagh; Ekaterini Lambrinou; Maria G Crespo-Leiro; Fiona Walker; Alexandra A Frogoudaki Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: David K C Cooper; Martin Wijkstrom; Sundaram Hariharan; Joshua L Chan; Avneesh Singh; Keith Horvath; Muhammad Mohiuddin; Arielle Cimeno; Rolf N Barth; John C LaMattina; Richard N Pierson Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.939