James K Kirklin1, Francis D Pagani2, Robert L Kormos3, Lynne W Stevenson4, Elizabeth D Blume5, Susan L Myers6, Marissa A Miller7, J Timothy Baldwin7, James B Young8, David C Naftel6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. Electronic address: jkirklin@uab.edu. 2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Heart and Vascular Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Medicine, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Advanced Technologies and Surgery Branch, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 8. Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database now includes >20,000 patients from >180 hospitals. METHODS: The eighth annual report of INTERMACS updates the first decade of patient enrollment. RESULTS: In the current era, >95% of implants are continuous flow devices. Overall survival continues to remain >80% at 1 year and 70% at 2 years. Review of major adverse events shows minimal advantage for patients with ambulatory heart failure pre-implant. Stroke, major infection, and continued inotrope requirement during the first 3 months have a major effect on subsequent survival. CONCLUSIONS: Greater application of durable devices to patients with ambulatory heart failure will mandate more effective neutralization or prevention of major adverse events.
BACKGROUND: The Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) database now includes >20,000 patients from >180 hospitals. METHODS: The eighth annual report of INTERMACS updates the first decade of patient enrollment. RESULTS: In the current era, >95% of implants are continuous flow devices. Overall survival continues to remain >80% at 1 year and 70% at 2 years. Review of major adverse events shows minimal advantage for patients with ambulatory heart failure pre-implant. Stroke, major infection, and continued inotrope requirement during the first 3 months have a major effect on subsequent survival. CONCLUSIONS: Greater application of durable devices to patients with ambulatory heart failure will mandate more effective neutralization or prevention of major adverse events.
Authors: Rebecca S Steinberg; Aditi Nayak; Celena O'Connell; Sharon Burford; Ann Pekarek; Neile Chesnut; Robert T Cole; Divya Gupta; S Raja Laskar; Kunal Bhatt; Michael Burke; Tamer Attia; Andrew Smith; J David Vega; Alanna A Morris Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: David M Peng; Devin A Koehl; Ryan S Cantor; Kristen N McMillan; Aliessa P Barnes; Patrick I McConnell; Jessica Jordan; Nicholas D Andersen; James D St Louis; Katsuhide Maeda; James K Kirklin; Steven J Kindel Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Zaid I Almarzooq; Anubodh S Varshney; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Manan Pareek; Garrick C Stewart; Jerry D Estep; Mandeep R Mehra Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-09-18