Curtis J Wozniak1, Josef Stehlik2, Bradley C Baird3, Stephen H McKellar3, Howard K Song4, Stavros G Drakos2, Craig H Selzman5. 1. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Francisco, California. 2. Division of Cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 3. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. 4. Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon. 5. Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Electronic address: craig.selzman@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes as well as lack of donor hearts have increased the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), rather than inotropic support, for bridging to transplantation. Recognizing that organ allocation in the highest status patients remains controversial, we sought to compare outcomes of patients with VADs and those receiving advanced medical therapy. METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to compare survival on the waiting list and posttransplantation survival in status 1A heart transplantation patients receiving VADs or high-dose/dual inotropic therapy or an intraaortic balloon pump( IABP), or both. Adjusted survival was calculated using Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Adjusted 1-year posttransplantation mortality was higher among patients with VADs compared with patients receiving inotropic agents alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; p<0.05). Survival remained better for patients receiving inotropic agents alone in the post-2008 era (HR, 1.36; p=0.03) and among those with isolated left-sided support (HR, 1.33; p=0.008). When patients who received IABPs were added and analyzed after 2008, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) group had similar survival (HR, 1.2; p=0.3). Survival on the waiting list, however, was superior among patients with LVADs (HR, 0.56; p<0.05). In a therapy transition analysis, failure of inotropic agents and the need for LVAD support was a consistent marker for significantly worse mortality (HR, 1.7; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although posttransplantation survival is better for patients who are bridged to transplantation with inotropic treatment only, the cost of failure of inotropic agents is significant, with a nearly doubled mortality for those who later require VAD support. Survival on the waiting list appears to be improved among patients receiving VAD support. Careful selection of the appropriate bridging strategy continues to be a significant clinical challenge.
BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes as well as lack of donor hearts have increased the use of ventricular assist devices (VADs), rather than inotropic support, for bridging to transplantation. Recognizing that organ allocation in the highest status patients remains controversial, we sought to compare outcomes of patients with VADs and those receiving advanced medical therapy. METHODS: The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database was used to compare survival on the waiting list and posttransplantation survival in status 1A heart transplantation patients receiving VADs or high-dose/dual inotropic therapy or an intraaortic balloon pump( IABP), or both. Adjusted survival was calculated using Cox's proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Adjusted 1-year posttransplantation mortality was higher among patients with VADs compared with patients receiving inotropic agents alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; p<0.05). Survival remained better for patients receiving inotropic agents alone in the post-2008 era (HR, 1.36; p=0.03) and among those with isolated left-sided support (HR, 1.33; p=0.008). When patients who received IABPs were added and analyzed after 2008, the left ventricular assist device (LVAD) group had similar survival (HR, 1.2; p=0.3). Survival on the waiting list, however, was superior among patients with LVADs (HR, 0.56; p<0.05). In a therapy transition analysis, failure of inotropic agents and the need for LVAD support was a consistent marker for significantly worse mortality (HR, 1.7; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although posttransplantation survival is better for patients who are bridged to transplantation with inotropic treatment only, the cost of failure of inotropic agents is significant, with a nearly doubled mortality for those who later require VAD support. Survival on the waiting list appears to be improved among patients receiving VAD support. Careful selection of the appropriate bridging strategy continues to be a significant clinical challenge.
Authors: James S Gammie; Leah B Edwards; Bartley P Griffith; Richard N Pierson; Lana Tsao Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: David A Bull; Bruce B Reid; Craig H Selzman; Rebecca Mesley; Stavros Drakos; Steven Clayson; Greg Stoddard; Edward Gilbert; Josef Stehlik; Feras Bader; Abdallah Kfoury; Deborah Budge; David D Eckels; Anne Fuller; Dale Renlund; Amit N Patel Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Lars H Lund; Leah B Edwards; Anna Y Kucheryavaya; Anne I Dipchand; Christian Benden; Jason D Christie; Fabienne Dobbels; Richard Kirk; Axel O Rahmel; Roger D Yusen; Josef Stehlik Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Mark J Russo; Kimberly N Hong; Ryan R Davies; Jonathan M Chen; Robert A Sorabella; Deborah D Ascheim; Mathew R Williams; Annetine C Gelijns; Allan S Stewart; Michael Argenziano; Yoshifumi Naka Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joseph C Cleveland; Frederick L Grover; David A Fullerton; David N Campbell; Max B Mitchell; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Eugene E Wolfel; Brian D Lowes; Simon F Shakar; Andreas Brieke; Anne Cannon; Alastair D Robertson Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Ranjit John; Francis D Pagani; Yoshifumi Naka; Andrew Boyle; John V Conte; Stuart D Russell; Charles T Klodell; Carmelo A Milano; Joseph Rogers; David J Farrar; O Howard Frazier Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2010-05-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: B E Jaski; J C Kim; D C Naftel; J Jarcho; M R Costanzo; H J Eisen; J K Kirklin; R C Bourge Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Randall C Starling; Yoshifumi Naka; Andrew J Boyle; Gonzalo Gonzalez-Stawinski; Ranjit John; Ulrich Jorde; Stuart D Russell; John V Conte; Keith D Aaronson; Edwin C McGee; William G Cotts; David DeNofrio; Duc Thinh Pham; David J Farrar; Francis D Pagani Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Vishnu Patlolla; Richard D Patten; David Denofrio; Marvin A Konstam; Rajan Krishnamani Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jay D Pal; Valentino Piacentino; Angela D Cuevas; Tim Depp; Mani A Daneshmand; Adrian F Hernandez; G Michael Felker; Andrew J Lodge; Joseph G Rogers; Carmelo A Milano Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Peter Chiu; Justin M Schaffer; Philip E Oyer; Michael Pham; Dipanjan Banerjee; Y Joseph Woo; Richard Ha Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 10.247
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