BACKGROUND: Although extremely high pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is a relative contraindication for heart transplantation (HTx), recent data with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) indicate HTx outcomes may be different when high PVR is managed with an LVAD. This study clarifies the contemporary association between PVR at HTx and posttransplant survival in LVAD vs non-LVAD cohorts. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing registry for adults who received a transplant from 2008 to 2015. In those with continuous-flow LVADs and those with no VADs at HTx, (non-VAD), we grouped patients by low PVR (PVR <3), intermediate PVR (PVR 3 to <6), and high PVR (PVR ≥6) groups. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for death after HTx were calculated by Cox regression. RESULTS: The non-LVAD cohort included 6270 patients (4385 in low, 1643 in intermediate, and 242 in high PVR), and the LVAD cohort included 4111 patients (3227 in low, 798 in intermediate, and 86 in high PVR). The high PVR LVAD group had the worst survival, which was not significant, likely to low power (P = .300). The aHR for death in non-LVAD was 1.047 (95% confidence interval, 1.010-1.088) and in LVAD was 1.063 (95% confidence interval, 1.010-1.119). Cubic spline analysis demonstrated nonlinear associations between PVR and the aHR, especially in the LVAD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant evidence to conclude the effect of pretransplant PVR on posttransplant survival is higher in LVAD vs non-LVAD patients, based on analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database. However, further investigations are indicated to clarify HTx candidacy in those with extremely high PVR even after LVAD.
BACKGROUND: Although extremely high pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) is a relative contraindication for heart transplantation (HTx), recent data with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) indicate HTx outcomes may be different when high PVR is managed with an LVAD. This study clarifies the contemporary association between PVR at HTx and posttransplant survival in LVAD vs non-LVAD cohorts. METHODS: We reviewed the United Network for Organ Sharing registry for adults who received a transplant from 2008 to 2015. In those with continuous-flow LVADs and those with no VADs at HTx, (non-VAD), we grouped patients by low PVR (PVR <3), intermediate PVR (PVR 3 to <6), and high PVR (PVR ≥6) groups. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for death after HTx were calculated by Cox regression. RESULTS: The non-LVAD cohort included 6270 patients (4385 in low, 1643 in intermediate, and 242 in high PVR), and the LVAD cohort included 4111 patients (3227 in low, 798 in intermediate, and 86 in high PVR). The high PVR LVAD group had the worst survival, which was not significant, likely to low power (P = .300). The aHR for death in non-LVAD was 1.047 (95% confidence interval, 1.010-1.088) and in LVAD was 1.063 (95% confidence interval, 1.010-1.119). Cubic spline analysis demonstrated nonlinear associations between PVR and the aHR, especially in the LVAD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant evidence to conclude the effect of pretransplant PVR on posttransplant survival is higher in LVAD vs non-LVAD patients, based on analysis of the United Network for Organ Sharing database. However, further investigations are indicated to clarify HTx candidacy in those with extremely high PVR even after LVAD.