Philicia Moonsamy1, Andrea L Axtell2, Nasrien E Ibrahim3, Masaki Funamoto4, George Tolis4, Gregory D Lewis3, David A D'Alessandro4, Mauricio A Villavicencio4. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: pmoonsamy@partners.org. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Cardiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy designates patients on ECMO or with nondischargeable, surgically implanted, nonendovascular support devices (TCS-VAD) to higher listing statuses. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore whether temporary circulatory support-ventricular assist devices (TCS-VAD) have a survival advantage over extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to transplant. METHODS: The UNOS database was used to conduct a retrospective analysis of adult heart transplants performed in the United States between 2005 and 2017. Survival analysis was performed to compare patients bridged to transplant with different modalities. RESULTS: Of the 24,905 adult transplants performed, 7,904 (32%) were bridged with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO, 203 (0.8%) with TCS-VAD, 44 (0.2%) with percutaneous endovascular devices, and 8 (0.03%) with TandemHeart (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom). Unadjusted survival at 1 and 5 years post-transplant was 90 ± 0.4% and 77 ± 0.7% for durable LVAD, 84 ± 3% and 71 ± 4% for all TCS-VAD types, 79 ± 9% and 73 ± 14% for biventricular TCS-VAD, and 68 ± 3% and 61 ± 8% for ECMO. After propensity-matched pairwise comparisons were made, survival after all TCS-VAD types continued to be superior to ECMO (p = 0.019) and similar to LVAD (p = 0.380). ECMO was a predictor of post-transplant mortality in the Cox analysis compared with TCS-VAD (hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 4.01; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant survival with TCS-VAD is superior to ECMO and similar to LVAD in a national database.
BACKGROUND: The United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) heart allocation policy designates patients on ECMO or with nondischargeable, surgically implanted, nonendovascular support devices (TCS-VAD) to higher listing statuses. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore whether temporary circulatory support-ventricular assist devices (TCS-VAD) have a survival advantage over extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridge to transplant. METHODS: The UNOS database was used to conduct a retrospective analysis of adult heart transplants performed in the United States between 2005 and 2017. Survival analysis was performed to compare patients bridged to transplant with different modalities. RESULTS: Of the 24,905 adult transplants performed, 7,904 (32%) were bridged with durable left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), 177 (0.7%) with ECMO, 203 (0.8%) with TCS-VAD, 44 (0.2%) with percutaneous endovascular devices, and 8 (0.03%) with TandemHeart (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom). Unadjusted survival at 1 and 5 years post-transplant was 90 ± 0.4% and 77 ± 0.7% for durable LVAD, 84 ± 3% and 71 ± 4% for all TCS-VAD types, 79 ± 9% and 73 ± 14% for biventricular TCS-VAD, and 68 ± 3% and 61 ± 8% for ECMO. After propensity-matched pairwise comparisons were made, survival after all TCS-VAD types continued to be superior to ECMO (p = 0.019) and similar to LVAD (p = 0.380). ECMO was a predictor of post-transplant mortality in the Cox analysis compared with TCS-VAD (hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval: 1.44 to 4.01; p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Post-transplant survival with TCS-VAD is superior to ECMO and similar to LVAD in a national database.
Authors: Alice L Zhou; Eric W Etchill; Katherine A Giuliano; Benjamin L Shou; Kavita Sharma; Chun W Choi; Ahmet Kilic Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Paul C Tang; Xiaoting Wu; Min Zhang; Donald Likosky; Jonathan W Haft; Ienglam Lei; Ashraf Abou El Ela; Ming-Sing Si; Keith D Aaronson; Francis D Pagani Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2022-04-30 Impact factor: 1.778
Authors: Ioannis Mastoris; Joseph E Tonna; Jinxiang Hu; Andrew J Sauer; Nicholas A Haglund; Peter Rycus; Yu Wang; William J Wallisch; Travis O Abicht; Matthew R Danter; Ryan J Tedford; James C Fang; Zubair Shah Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 8.790