Literature DB >> 27765177

Survival After Orthotopic Heart Transplantation in Patients Undergoing Bridge to Transplantation With the HeartWare HVAD Versus the Heartmate II.

J Trent Magruder1, Joshua C Grimm1, Todd C Crawford1, Ryan J Tedford2, Stuart D Russell2, Christopher M Sciortino1, Glenn J R Whitman1, Ashish S Shah3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine whether the choice of a HeartWare HVAD as opposed to a Heartmate II left ventricular assist device (HMII LVAD), impacts survival after heart transplantation after controlling for patient, donor, and center characteristics.
METHODS: We queried the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, which has recently made pretransplantation device duration available, for all adult patients undergoing bridge to transplantation (BTT) between January 2011 and March 2016. Recipient, donor, and transplant-specific characteristics were compared between patients receiving either device. Unadjusted survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Risk-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were constructed to determine the independent impact of device selection on mortality.
RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred fifty-six patients who received the HMII and 1,051 patients who received the HVAD met inclusion criteria. Patients who received the HMII had a longer mean duration of VAD support (HMII, 429 days versus HVAD, 314 days; p < 0.001) but spent shorter periods on the waiting list (median, 190 days versus 232 days; p < 0.001). Patients who received the HMII had worse pre-LVAD renal function than did those who received the HVAD (glomerular filtration rate [GFR], 57 mL/min versus 62 mL/min, respectively; p = 0.001), but there was no difference in postoperative new-onset dialysis after transplantation (11.6% versus 10.5%, respectively; p = 0.14). There was no difference in unadjusted posttransplantation 30-day (95.5% versus 96.7%, respectively; log-rank p = 0.09), 6-month (91.8% versus 92.6%, respectively; p = 0.35), or 1-year (89.7% versus 90.9%, respectively; p = 0.22) survival between the 2 groups. After risk adjustment with Cox modeling, device selection did not predict mortality at any time point.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received a BTT LVAD and then received a heart transplant, no survival differences were seen between patients initially implanted with an HVAD versus an HMII.
Copyright © 2017 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27765177     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.08.060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  4 in total

1.  Cannula and Pump Positions Are Associated With Left Ventricular Unloading and Clinical Outcome in Patients With HeartWare Left Ventricular Assist Device.

Authors:  Teruhiko Imamura; Sirtaz Adatya; Ben Chung; Ann Nguyen; Daniel Rodgers; Gabriel Sayer; Nitasha Sarswat; Gene Kim; Jayant Raikhelkar; Takeyoshi Ota; Tae Song; Colleen Juricek; Diego Medvedofsky; Valluvan Jeevanandam; Roberto Lang; Jerry D Estep; Daniel Burkhoff; Nir Uriel
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 5.712

2.  Sex-Based Heart Transplant Outcomes After Bridging With Centrifugal Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Authors:  Lauren V Huckaby; Laura M Seese; Edgar Aranda-Michel; Michael A Mathier; Gavin Hickey; Mary E Keebler; Ibrahim Sultan; Thomas G Gleason; Arman Kilic
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Use of durable left ventricular assist devices for high-risk patients: Korean experience before insurance coverage.

Authors:  Jun Ho Lee; Ilkun Park; Heemoon Lee; Kiick Sung; Young Tak Lee; Darae Kim; Jeong Hoon Yang; Jin-Oh Choi; Eun-Seok Jeon; Yang Hyun Cho
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  On the Optimization of a Centrifugal Maglev Blood Pump Through Design Variations.

Authors:  Peng Wu; Jiadong Huo; Weifeng Dai; Wei-Tao Wu; Chengke Yin; Shu Li
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 4.566

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.