BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: The purpose of this study was to examine whether blood product utilization, one-year cell-mediated rejection rates, and mid-term survival significantly differ for ventricular assist device (VAD patients compared to non-VAD (NVAD) patients following cardiac transplantation. METHODS: From July 2004 to August 2011, 79 patients underwent cardiac transplantation at a single institution. Following exclusion of patients bridged to transplantation with VADs other than the HeartMate II® LVAD (n = 10), patients were stratified by VAD presence at transplantation: VAD patients (n = 35, age: 54.0 [48.0-59.0] years) vs. NVAD patients (n = 34, age: 52.5 [42.8-59.3] years). The primary outcomes of interest were blood product transfusion requirements, one-year cell-mediated rejection rates, and mid-term survival post-transplantation. RESULTS: Preoperative patient characteristics were similar for VAD and NVAD patients. NVAD patients presented with higher median preoperative creatinine levels compared to VAD patients (1.3 [1.1-1.6] vs. 1.1 [0.9-1.4], p = 0.004). VAD patients accrued higher intraoperative transfusion of all blood products (all p ≤ 0.001) compared to NVAD patients. The incidence of clinically significant cell-mediated rejection within the first posttransplant year was higher in VAD compared to NVAD patients (66.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.02). During a median follow-up period of 3.2 (2.0, 6.3) years, VAD patients demonstrated an increased postoperative mortality that did not reach statistical significance (20.0% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: During the initial era as a bridge to transplantation, the HeartMate II® LVAD significantly increased blood product utilization and one-year cell-mediated rejection rates for cardiac transplantation. Further study is warranted to optimize anticoagulation strategies and to define causal relationships between these factors for the current era of cardiac transplantation.
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY: The purpose of this study was to examine whether blood product utilization, one-year cell-mediated rejection rates, and mid-term survival significantly differ for ventricular assist device (VADpatients compared to non-VAD (NVAD) patients following cardiac transplantation. METHODS: From July 2004 to August 2011, 79 patients underwent cardiac transplantation at a single institution. Following exclusion of patients bridged to transplantation with VADs other than the HeartMate II® LVAD (n = 10), patients were stratified by VAD presence at transplantation: VADpatients (n = 35, age: 54.0 [48.0-59.0] years) vs. NVADpatients (n = 34, age: 52.5 [42.8-59.3] years). The primary outcomes of interest were blood product transfusion requirements, one-year cell-mediated rejection rates, and mid-term survival post-transplantation. RESULTS: Preoperative patient characteristics were similar for VAD and NVADpatients. NVADpatients presented with higher median preoperative creatinine levels compared to VADpatients (1.3 [1.1-1.6] vs. 1.1 [0.9-1.4], p = 0.004). VADpatients accrued higher intraoperative transfusion of all blood products (all p ≤ 0.001) compared to NVADpatients. The incidence of clinically significant cell-mediated rejection within the first posttransplant year was higher in VAD compared to NVADpatients (66.7% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.02). During a median follow-up period of 3.2 (2.0, 6.3) years, VADpatients demonstrated an increased postoperative mortality that did not reach statistical significance (20.0% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: During the initial era as a bridge to transplantation, the HeartMate II® LVAD significantly increased blood product utilization and one-year cell-mediated rejection rates for cardiac transplantation. Further study is warranted to optimize anticoagulation strategies and to define causal relationships between these factors for the current era of cardiac transplantation.
Authors: Ranjit John; Katherine Lietz; Michael Schuster; Yoshifumi Naka; Vivek Rao; Donna M Mancini; Eric A Rose; Craig R Smith; Mehmet C Oz; Niloo M Edwards; Silviu Itescu Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: O H Frazier; E A Rose; P McCarthy; N A Burton; A Tector; H Levin; H L Kayne; V L Poirier; K A Dasse Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: P C Hébert; G Wells; M A Blajchman; J Marshall; C Martin; G Pagliarello; M Tweeddale; I Schweitzer; E Yetisir Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Félix G Fernández; Andres Jaramillo; Greg Ewald; Joseph Rogers; Michael K Pasque; T Mohanakumar; Nader Moazami Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: J C Stringham; D A Bull; T C Fuller; A G Kfoury; D O Taylor; D G Renlund; S V Karwande Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: M G Massad; D J Cook; S K Schmitt; N G Smedira; J F McCarthy; R L Vargo; P M McCarthy Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: S H Kubo; D C Naftel; R M Mills; J O'Donnell; R J Rodeheffer; G B Cintron; J L Kenzora; R C Bourge; J K Kirklin Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 1995 May-Jun Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Anthony P Carnicelli; Anjali Thakkar; David J Deicicchi; Andrew C Storm; Jessica Rimsans; Jean M Connors; Mandeep R Mehra; John D Groarke; Michael M Givertz Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.300